Jump to content

Talk:Khokhar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jat Raj (talk | contribs) at 17:15, 7 October 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The book Origins and history of Jats and other allied nomadic tribes of India: 900 B.C. - 1947 A.D. (2007) by B.S. Nijjar is an unreliable and misleading work which should not be used in the Wikipedia

I notice that in edits here and on quite a number of Wikipedia articles relating to Indian, Scythian (Saka) and related history, references are being made to B. S. Nijjars' book (see the title above). Unfortunately, I do not have a copy to hand so can only judge it on the pages I am able to access through Google Books, but even on these few pages I find so many outright mistakes, unsupported claims and outdated positions that the whole book must be considered an unreliable source for the history of this period. Here are just a few examples:

1. On p. 244, Nijjar claims the Kushans are "thought to have been of Yueh-chih stock with a strong admixture of Hephthalits, Saka and Tocharian." He makes no mention at all of who thinks this, or on what grounds. The truth is no one knows who the Kushans really were - there are many theories and little agreement in scholarly circles.

2. On p. 245, he makes the "Yueh-chih (Pinyin yuezhi) a branch of the Kushans, also called Indo-Scyth . . ." Again, he gives no reference or evidence for this amazing statement.

3. On p. 247, there are several errors: first Nijjar claims that the Kushan dynasty is descended from the Yuezhi, contradicting his earlier statements. While this may well be so, it is a contested point and, as usual, there is no proof or references given.

4. On the same page he repeats the long-standing but now discredited notion that Kanishka is connected with the advent of the Saka era of 78 CE. Most scholars now accept Falk's well-reasoned and well-supported argument for Kanishka's era starting c. 127 CE.

5. Again on page 247 he states that Kanishka's empire stretched "from Khotan in the north . . ." Now, a Kushan army did invade the Tarim Basin in 90 CE, but it was soon forced to retreat by the famous Chinese General Ban Chao. Later, in the teens of the second century, Kushan troops are said to have placed a Kashgari hostage prince, Chenpan, on the throne of Kashgar, but not long after this Chenpan came under control of the Chinese. We have no definite historical or archaeological evidence that the Kushans ever controlled Khotan and, even if they did, it must have been for a very brief period.

6. And again, on the same p. 247, Nijjar states: "In outlook, Kanishka was full-fledged Indian . . ." This is pure speculation and demonstrably very unlikely. Kanishka's two longest and most important inscriptions are from northern Afghanistan in the Bactrian language (which is more closely related to Persian than Sanskrit or Prakrits) and, although one of his rarer coins has a Buddha on it, most of his coins feature Iranian deities. So, on what grounds does Nijjar claim that "Kanishka was full-fledged Indian"?

7. Nijjar has a chapter (No. 7) headed "The Kushans (Ancestors of Jat, Ahirs, Rajputs, Baloches, and Pathans) in which he makes a whole series of completely unsupported and unorthodox claims (such as that the Ta Yuan or Dayuan were Tokharians on p. 245). Then, under the sub-heading, "THE EMPEROR KUJULA KADAPHASES", he starts off: "The Yueh-chih succeeded by his son Vima, after whom came Kanishka . . . " WE already have three errors here: the name is usually written Kujula Kadphises, and it is not at all certain that he was a Yueh-chih (Yuezhi), and it has been known for some years now from the Rabatak inscription that, while he did have a son named Vima Tak(tu), this Vima had a son known as Vima Kadphises who, in turn, was the father of Kanishka. So Kanishka was Kujula Kadphises' grandson, not his son as Nijjar claims.

8. Nijjar then goes on making a series of similar mistakes (plus numerous grammatical and spelling errors) - often showing his total ignorance of modern scholarship - I can't even begin to list them all here. I should mention though that, on p. 252, he makes a totally unsupported claim the Kushans were "of Saka stock" - a very contentious and unprovable claim. Indeed, if they were originally Yuezhi (as he earlier claimed), it is most unlikely that they were Sakas for the Chinese histories record that when the Yuezhi moved into the Ili region they defeated the Sakas there and they clearly represent them as two quite different peoples.

9. And so he goes on, making uncertain claims one after another until he reaches the end of his chapter, on page 259, without once saying why he believes that the Kushans were "Ancestors of Jat, Ahirs, Rajputs, Baloches, and Pathans", as stated in the title of the chapter! And his next chapter (Chapter 8) is headed "The Huns (Ancestors of Jat, Ahirs, Rajputs, Baloches, and Pathans)" which, one can only assume in the end, would be similarly inconclusive and full of unsupported claims.

It is for these reasons (and others far too numerous to include here) that I maintain that B. S. Nijjar's book is a seriously flawed and sloppy work, full of errors and unsupported claims. Moreover, Nijjar is clearly unaware of recent scholarship relating to the issues he so confidently presents to the reader as facts.

The book, as a result, is a very unreliable and misleading source for the history of the period and, so, references should not be made to it in the Wikipedia.

I will, therefore, start removing quotes from it, and references to it, wherever I come across them in the Wikipedia and refer people to this note for my justification. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John I have found ""History and Study of the Jats by BS Dhillon", to be in the same vein. Some half quotes and half truths in there. Best Wishes--Sikh-History 14:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I understand your feelings. That is always the case with Indian sources, specially when someone from that society (Jat/Gakkar/Gujjar/Kakkar/Khokar) is the author. It has a reason why specially these kind of people have a addiction to flaws. Historically and culturally, these people are regarded as inferior in Pakistan and India. These people are also the ethnic ancestors of european and american gypsies. These people have to forge for themselves a history where at least a bit pride can be claimed. Nevertheless, people like you and me are there to take a watch on them, although not all of their claims are wrong but their argumentations are. Asya'dan Kurt Pençe (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khokhars are Jat.. it is a habit of rajputs to make everyone their father Jat Raj (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts today.

Perhaps with a useful wp:edit summary, these might be more credible. As entered, however, the section head change, and the renaming of Khokhar to Gekkhar, seem dubious.- Sinneed 15:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

I am going to be getting more involved in sorting out this mess of an article. I'll try to provide decent edit summaries but a lot of it is likely to be removed because it is quite clearly incorrect.

Just for starters, given that the work of H A Rose is cited quite a lot, it should be clear that Rose refers to Khokhar, to Chokar and to Chhokar as being different communities, eg: Vol. 2 p. 312. So, anything in the article that uses info from Rose relating to Chokar or Chhokar is going to go. - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikeley is plagiarising Rose big time for his history stuff. However, there is one quote from Wikeley that I cannot find in any of Rose's books because I am using Gbooks & there are some pages missing. So, if anyone can find

The general conversion of the Muslim Rajputs from Hinduism is supposed to have taken place towards the end of the 13th or early 14th century AD. The Muslim conquests undoubtedly accelerated this change of religion, but the preaching of several renowned Muslim saints, especially Baba Farid of Pakpattan and Syed Ali Hajveri of Lahore, whose eloquence drew large numbers to hear him, helped considerably to this end

or something very similar in Rose then please could you leave a note here or on my talk page. I am 99% sure that it is in there somewhere. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sitush
  • I have the three volumes Ibbetson , if you can tell me what about which pages this information is missing on google books I may be able to identify the exact page for you .
  • I worked a long time on providing verifiable content on this article and then left , there's a lot more reliable content for the article in earlier versions , which if you were to search you would find useful , here is I think my last edit,page version which has content now missing from the article .

CheersIntothefire (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ibbetson is not really a reliable source. We would use that as a last resort. My query was about the sentence I quote above. If it is is Ibbetson then great, not because it makes the content any better but because it proves beyond doubt that Wikeley should not be used as a source on any Wikipedia article due to him being an absolutely blatant plagiarist.
I'll take a look at the revision which you mention, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sitush
Your good work is appreciated , but discuss before you delete .

Here's why the link needs to go to the Gakhar page and not Gakhars page .
There are many pages on Wikipedia concerning South Asian clans/tribes that have Muslim and Hindu/Sikh adherents and historical Import . Regretfully there is a continuous exertion by many editors to assume ownership and aggressively delete content( reliable and with citations) that they do not like .
The Gakhars page is a prime example . The Gakhars are a Punjabi clan from the Punjab with Muslim and Hindu populations .

I worked on the Gakhars page for long contributing content , only for it to be aggressively deleted by a few editors : under the contention that there are only Muslim Gakhars , finally not wanting to edit war any further with these intransigent editors I established the Gakhar Hindus pages .

So the direct link to the Gakhars page is an Inaccurate link then , as there is (unfortunately !) a Gakhar Hindus page as well .If you feel strongly about the link going direct then the right thing to do would be that you first Merge the two Gakhar pages .

Do exercise even handed caution when you delete content cited or un-cited , unless you are dead sure yourself lest it seem selective .
Cheers Intothefire (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is not a valid reason., Fix/merge those those articles, by all means, but we do not usually link to disambig pages, per guidelines. By the sounds of it, you may have created an article unnecessarily. Please change the link back & then at some point I will take a look at the various Gakhar articles.
As for my edits, if I have any queries then I will ask. If you have any then you should ask. Do you have some POV/conflict of interest in the Gakkhar/Khokhar articles? I do not. - Sitush (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response 2 to Sitush from Intothefire

Hi Sitush
  • On the 16th of August I added a link in the See Also section to Gakhar disambiguation page
  • On the 16 August itself you deleted this with a comment do not need this - it is linked inline
  • Actually it was not linked inline to the page I had put viz Gakhar . The page was linked inline to Gakhars
  • I did not dispute your deletion in good faith , believing Gakhar Hindus page may have missed your attention .
  • So On the 18th of August going by your comment I improved the link to now point it to the Gakhar disambiguation page since you had mentioned linked inline
  • Next on 18 August 2011 you again delete this as well with your comment it didn't need repairing to point to the disambig because it goes straight to the article
  • Its circular logic you will delete the disambiguation link on See Also section , and you delete the disambiguation link in the article as well
  • When in good faith I explain to you about the Gakhar pages here on the talk page you now say :Yours is not a valid reason , Fix/merge those those articles, by all means, but we do not usually link to disambig pages, per guidelines

My friend your persistence is completely Unjustified .

I also again implore you please do not delete cited content without discussion as you have done
recently on this article on 4th August,
as well as others for instance on the Kshatriya article where you have deleted cited content wholesale and selectively .
Intothefire (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted that content because Wikipedia is not a dictionary of quotations, because we do not use the {{cquote}} template in the body of an article (see: WP:MOSQUOTE, because none of the quotes added anything to the info that was retained and because excessive quotation can be a breach of WP:FUR. It was entirely justified. If you want to swap one quote for another then fair enough but we are supposed to write things in our own words, not just copy content wholesale from sources. Quotes should be at best only a small part of the whole. Just because you put it in a fancy template does not resolve the issue. This article was a complete and utter mess and I am only half way through fixing it: it said incorrect things, was a wall of quotations, relied on synthesis etc. I have not yet looked at the version which you referred to in your earlier message but will do so. Given what you have just pointed to re: the quotes, I must admit to not being hopeful ... but I may get a pleasant surprise.
Re-read what you wrote about the See Also/disambig thing. It is your logic that makes no sense - we do not link to disambig pages unless we do not know which is the correct page. In this instance, we do know but the page is messed up. So go fix that page, or fix the link. Do not take it out on me. - Sitush (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not take it out on me......??
Believe me ....from experience in real life ......when I hear this line .....
Ive lost the argument !! .please feel free to restore back the link as you like it ....I will not restore or oppose it .

Cheers Intothefire (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikeley as a source

I have removed all references to Wikeley as a source. The guy was primarily a soldier and only an amateur historian but worse, his book contains substantial amounts of plagiarism and not infrequent mangling of what others said. It is hopelessly unreliable as a source, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of cited content

Sitush
Stop removing valid citations as you are doing over and over again on numerous articles where I have contributed .

Apart from the above , here is yet another recent instance of a removal of valid citation by you . The citation is absolutely genuine and ok] see the link you have removed.
Intothefire (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your message on Sitush's talk page. The problem isn't the citation, it's that you copied, nearly word for word, the source. You can't do that --it's a copyright violation. You must substantially reword the whole info--extract the relevant info and put it into your own words. Copying others words (or very closely paraphrasing them) is not allowed. That's what Sitush said in his edit summary. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Qwyrxian

Thanks Qwyrxian for your advice , and glad to learn skills that could come from anywhere , please guide me to the page where can I read more about what you are suggesting .On the other hand I am not the one who contributed this content , if I am mistaken please specifically inform . Sitush seems to be an experienced editor ....albeit with an uncivil and presumptuous attitude problem . If an experienced editor finds a valid citation can be improved , is it not better to improve rather than delete altogether ? More importantly I have a serious issue with deleting cited content without discussion ....

Sitush is deleting good citations from page after page , in spite I believe his considerable skills to take a moment to consider that a citation may be genuine ....I can keep offering examples of pages which are on my watchlist ....or where I have contributed .

Intothefire (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qwyrxian
If the the citation provides a complete attribution to the author/text/Page /Publisher and then also provides a proper link directly to the work , would that constitute a copyright violation ??
Intothefire (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed your indents. In general, please just put one more colon on your new lines than the person did who posted before you. Regarding the copvio, no, that would not be acceptable, unless you actually put the whole part into quotation marks. A citation merely indicates where the info came from--you would need something else to explicitly show that it was copied. But, even if you did that, it would still be wrong. Wikipedia is not supposed to just be copies of what other people have said; instead, we should summarize the key points, so that there is a coherent structure and narrative in our whole article.
As for Sitush's other removals; well, if a source does not meet WP:RS, then an editor doesn't need to discuss first before removing the info. Of course, other editors can challenge the removal, but we're all instructed to make bold additions and removals, and then, if there is a challenge, discuss the issue on the talk page. Sitush is one of the best editors on this site that I have encountered at closely reading and analyzing texts, so if he says, for example, that Wikely is an unreliable source, I'm inclined to trust him; however, if someone else presented a clear explanation, than I might change my opinion. The thing is, a lot of articles on Wikipedia, especially those on topics related to India, have bad sources in them: websites that aren't reliable, books that are overly old or known copies of Wikipedia or self-published, original religious documents, etc. To improve the encyclopedia, we have to remove that information. Now, if there are specific problems with specific removals, please post them here. Sitush told me that he may be away from Wikipedia for a few days, though he wasn't sure, so he may not be able to respond so quickly, but I can try to help in the mean time (though I can't presume to speak for him). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush and here's yet another deletion of sited content which removed for fallacious reasons . You deleted cited content once again here and provide reason Khokhars support Shahi struggles against Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi: remove: although sourced, nowhere is Khokhar mentioned. But the content is from a reliable source , the citation is correct and Khokhars are clearly mentioned . Intothefire (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be decently sourced if it does not even mention the Khokars? Please read WP:V. I could put a sourced statement in here saying that WW2 started in 1939 but it would hardly be relevant. - Sitush (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I take that back. My apologies. The Khokhars are mentioned, in the last sentence. To my mind it is a trivial reference but, sure, if you want to put a single sentence in that says they supported the guy & use this source to support it then feel free. But please do not quote the entire she-bang. - Sitush (talk) 13:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Divisions

I have just removed the section entitled "Divisions". It had been tagged for sources since November 2011 and was becoming the focus for further unsourced additions. I have absolutely no problem with some statements about Khokhar divisions appearing in the article but they must be verifiable by reference to reliable sources. So, feel free to reinstate but only if you can provide those sources. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Titles

Why did they remove titles from this page. Malik is used by Khokhars and Khokhran, and refers to chiefs,[91]primarily by Qutab- Shahi Khokhars who claim to be descendants of Qutab Shah. Chaudhry is used by Khokhars in parts of Punjab. Raja is used by many Khokhars, and is commonly used by Rajputs in Punjab.[92] Rana is also commonly used by Rajputs in Punjab, and is used by Khokhars in central and eastern Punjab. Rai is also used.

References

  • 91.Gazetteer of the Multan District 1923-24 published by sang-E-meel publications and page 139.
  • 92.Punjabi Muslmans by lt. Col, j.m. wikeley, page 110

Please bring them back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coke77 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to tell from what you've given, but my guess is that those sources probably don't meet WP:RS. Also, a Gazetteer probably wouldn't help establish the facts listed. The first is certainly too old to establish that Khokar use certain titles--at most, it could say that 100 years ago Khokar may have used a certain title. And what is the publication info on the second? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikeley is unreliable. He was a professional soldier who wrote a handbook intended for use by other soldiers. That book (Panjab Musalmans) is the source cited here and it consists almost entirely of plagiarism and what would now be considered to be copyright violations. His plagiarism was of pseudo-academics etc from earlier times. Although much used here on Wikipedia, he is not commonly cited by any modern academics etc. The use of him on Wikipedia is, in my experience, only ever done when it "puffs" a certain group of people. The publisher was a non-notable printing house whose name is commonly mis-spelled, although I cannot recall it right now. Based in Lahore, IIRC.

The Gazetteer is equally unreliable and, again, is basically regurgitation of older stuff. - Sitush (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


RAJPUT SUBCONTINENT.

In his Annals, Tod has listed the Khokhar Rajputs as one of the 24 septs of the Rathore Rajputs.Due to the popularity of Rajputs, lots of people prefer to borrow Rajput tribal names.It gives people self respect.Almost every caste in the Indian subcontinent is claiming Rajput origins.The Indian subcontinent can be rightly called Rajput subcontinent.Rajbaz (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFter numerous discussions in a variety of places, there is a strong consensus that Tod is not even close to a reliable source for anything other than his own opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firishta

Firishta is compiled by historian named Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah (Persian: محمد قاسم ہندو شاه), was born in 1560 and died in 1620 and he was a Persian historian.[1] The name Firishta means angel or one who is sent in Persian.

Now surely given the fact Gakkhar's (Kiani/Raja) and Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah originate from Iran, he would be better placed to establish the difference between the Khokhar's and Gakkhars rather than the latter H A Rose or Ahmed Abdulla. And as for Khatar, I have a seen a very old copy of Firishta and there is no mention of Khatar being one of Qutb Shah's sons, again this seems like a personal opinion insertion on someone's part. Its a common fact that ethnicity is reflected in ones physical features, customs, traditions and if still not satisfied a simple DNA match these days can easily put such contradictions and confusions to rest.

It is sad to read that great Arab/Muslim history of the subcontinent has been deliberately hijacked and distorted by Indian historians for political reasons rather than genuine confusion, there is an attempt to mix-match every major Muslim tribe with Hindu origins to distort a sense of belonging and engineer segregation from its middle eastern neighbours. Khokhar's have largely intermarried within their own Shahi clans and have also married into many other tribes such as Chokhans, Chibs, Rajputs, Jutts and Gujjar's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik khohhar (talk • contribs) 17:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your comment here--please add new sections to the bottom of the page. As for your points, we cannot rely on what is in the Firishta itself--that's a primary source, and primary sources are not reliable for information other than what they literally say. And for a document that's 400 years old, that's basically nothing. As for your latter points--in fact, ethnicity cannot be established by DNA match, since ethnicity is a social construct, not a biological one. In some cases, there are genetic markers that tend to indicate that someone will likely be associated with a certain ethnicity, but nothing conclusive.
So, if you want to suggest changes to the article, please provide reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, I fund it purely by accident, I was waiting for your reply via my talk. Before I contribute any further to this discussion I would like to know a bit about you and the reason for your interest in Khokhar history, their religion and origin etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik khohhar (talk • contribs) 21:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any particular interest in the Khokar. In fact, I know nothing about them other than what I've gleaned from editing this article. I edit thousands of different articles on Wikipedia, and my interest is to see that they follow, as best as they can, our various policies and guidelines, and that they are expanded to include relevant information when possible, so long as that information comes from reliable sources and meets other rules. Finally, please note that you're generally not supposed to ask Wikipedia editors about their real life circumstances, as people are allowed to edit anonymously, and do not need to have any specific personal or professional knowledge of a subject. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of contradiction in what you say and practice, just read back your own reasoning to me and you will see for yourself as will those who are following this conversation. I have genuine interest in my history, I also have seen reliable published sources and unpublished records that support what I edited which you unjustly deleted and should repost. Obviously we are at odds because I believe the wider view that Khokhar's are descendants of Qutab Shah and have history that reflects that within their culture, faith and relationships. I don't doubt H A Rose's intentions to learn about the tribes of Punjab. As a newly appointed assistant commissioner just arrived from England, he had much to learn about the people he was commissioned to manage and later Judge. But it doesn't mean that he had in-depth understanding of the fine differences between the various tribes and clans, coming from a totally different culture, language and background. As an example Ghamdi is an Arabian surname and Gandhi an Indian surname just because they sound similar it doesn't mean that they related. Same as Khokhar, kokar and Gakkhar, Kokar originates from Persia its about 4000 year old royal name , Gakkhar is from Kian also Persia again few thousand year old name, in Pakistan they are known as Kiani or Raja's, it is possible that these Persian tribes moved into ancient Hindustan because back then they shared similar religious beliefs. Khokhar in Urdu کھوکھر and Arabic خوخار is a totally separate name that appears in history around the 12 century, the first leadership encounter of Muhammad Shah Khokhar in Firishta is at the time of Mongol invasion southwards into northern Punjab which he successfully halted followed by peace truce and marriage between Qutab Shah and Changez Khan's grandchildren, hence why the Mughal's didn't enter India until the 16th Century and when they did, remained closely allied with the Khokhar's and adopted Shah rather than Khan as their title. As far as I know Khokhar is a combination of two words separately meaning (High and Robust), jointly interpreted as sovereign or master hence the use of Malik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik khohhar (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Why have you changed the spelling of my sign in name, I should do the same to your name? Is this professional or admission from you that you having nothing constructive to add but refuse to accept the wider view and truth. That is why I asked you to disclose yourself, truth has nothing to fear and is destined to rise to the top whilst falsehood is gutless and doomed to perish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik khohhar (talk • contribs) 21:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't changed anything in the spelling of your name--that's the username you chose. If you made a spelling mistake yourself, you can request a name change at WP:CHUS (as a side note, please put four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your talk page posts, so that your name will automatically be signed and time-stamped. As for the rest of your information, while interesting, it doesn't help us edit the article. Information in Wikipedia must be based upon reliable sources. Drawing your own conclusions is what we call original research, and isn't allowed. However, if you'd like to present some sources, we can certainly figure out how to integrate good material into the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make a mistake, been using that sign in for the last week or so, it changed last night immediately after my post. Once resolved we remove this part of the conversation as its a deviation from the actual subject about Khokhar history and origins, nice attempt.Malik (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian is correct both concerning the irrelevance of your long message timed at 21:38 28 August and also regarding your username. Please look at the log for your account, which clearly shows the spelling of your name when the account was created on 23 August. - Sitush (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC

Its been changed, you are wasting time and trying to deviate away from the actual subject and conversation. 08:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC) hence to maintain a continuous string of our conversation of the Khokhar history I suggest that you move the irrelevant part of the conversation onto our personal talk.Malik (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but your attitude stinks here. Firstly, please consider WP:AGF - you raised the issue of your username, you made a false accusation and both Q & I reacted calmly to that. Secondly, we are waiting for you to provide some reliable sources for your points regarding content. On both counts, the ball is firmly in your court. - Sitush (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only that stinks is you and your arrogance.Malik (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for reliable sources, you refuse to accept historical accounts of Firishta which is widely accepted by Muslim historians,instead you hold H A Rose's opinions as an credible authority, why? Did you know that there are Khokhar's in Sindh and KPK settled in these provinces for centuries and have sizeable land holdings, for some reason H A Rose has overlooked this in his book. My reasoning above isn't original as you describe it but logical given the facts at hand and from historical records. When it comes to Khokhar relationships with other tribes and clans of the subcontinent such as Awan's, Chokhans, Bhatti, Chibs, Rajputs, Jat's, Gujjars etc. Yes that is true and still ongoing but this doesn't change the individual identity or history of any tribe or clan. Malik (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you point me to a diff in this article where I hold H. A. Rose to be authoritative. You are spraying accusations around seemingly at random. I am on record as being unhappy with Rose, H. H. Risley, James Tod and numerous other British Raj authors as sources for Wikipedia articles and have contributed substantially to the articles about such people. That does not make Firishta reliable, of course, and you still have provided no evidence of him being "widely accepted by Muslim historians". Prove it, please. - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not spraying any accusations, infact most of the article on Khokhar's within Wikipedia is based on personal opinions and self acclaimed authorities. If you are unhappy or at disagreement with British Raj authors why have you based Khokhar history and origins on the basis of H A Rose's opinion? Malik (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not engaging with you any further until you start providing evidence to support your numerous accusations and statements. We are supposed to work in a collaborative manner here but it is difficult to to do when someone becomes tendentious. All you have to do is provide some verification but you seem to be ignoring this. Please note the warning at the top of this talk page: I appreciate that you are a newly-registered user but our WP:AGF policy is not a suicide pact. - Sitush (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Malik, Sitush is correct--please provide reliable sources to support your claims, or there's really nothing we can do. As for your name, I assure you that names are never, under any circumstances, changed without the approval of the person doing them. Furthermore, it's literally impossible for Sitush or I to have done so--only bureaucrats, who are specially elected by the community, can change names, and neither Sitush nor I are bureaucrats. In any event, like I said, it's very easy for you to change your name, just go to WP:CHUS. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dear bureaucrats, you refuse to accept Firishta which is history of Muslim tribes and clans in their own words; rather you want a selection from the version of the opposing forces at that time as the main source of reference. It’s like searching for God in the words of an atheist.81.100.165.35 (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Allahu Akbar God is Great

Alláh-u-Abhá;God is Most Glorious

Our need to be congenial is essential to our ability to work together toward a common goal. Communicating our thoughts is not easily done on the Internet. Mistakes of interpretation during article discussions are quite common. What is not common, and what can not be permitted to become common, is mis-treating or attacking our fellow editors. Name calling and accusations do not forward the discussion. In fact, they derail it. We are ALL collaborators here at Wikipedia. We are not adversaries. This is not a competition of ideas or cultures. These editors are more than willing to work with you to create a quality article. It is best to avoid conflict, even if you feel you are right. Attacks and counter-attacks do nothing to forward you goal. Verifiable references will forward your goal. Peace. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC

Ok, if you don't mind let's start with your verifiable reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik khohhar (talk • contribs) 13:25, 29 August 2012‎
(Not signed so I'm not really sure who is making this request)---Why would you ask me for verifiable references. I am not editing the article if that is your intent by your question. We are all humans here, children of God. Please don't be so impersonal. You are a Wikipedia editor just like the rest of us. Constantly challenging doesnt work to YOUR benefit. Also, please sign your edits. it makes conversation so much easier.```Buster Seven Talk 13:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have signed Malik's post. - Sitush (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:Sitush. Above you say, I am sorry but your attitude stinks here. This is the type of reply that only prolongs the strife and creates further distance from agreement. Our ability to communicate with each other is fragile. If you begin with a jab, your fellow editor will most likely ignore your input and jab back. Collaborators don't attack each other. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, AGF is not a suicide pact. I've got a pretty wide experience of this type of situation and the people who tend to be involved. Although I'm not too fond of being described as one of God's children, I don't go around accusing you of anything: certain people in this subject area do little but accuse and it is not productive, WP:WER or not WER. If you object to my tone then feel free to report me somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I talk to people. I don't report them. You asked me to come here. You asked for my input on these talk pages. What I see is conflict on an intrapersonal level. Fellow editors can be difficult to work with. Saying their attitde stinks will ONLY make them more difficult. I made no accusations and the fact that you hear it as one is interesting. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask for your input on this page. I queried whether you would like to "follow through" on Malik's talk page, since you had posted a welcome there of a type that I had not seen before. Obviously, I do not object to anyone's input here but the religious homilies ... I also did not say that you had accused me of anything. Perhaps you would care to re-read the things that I have said because you appear to be misunderstanding. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way who is the creator and official editor of this page? Malik (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on "View history" in the toolbar on top of any page you can discover the answer to your question about the creator or first editor. There is no such thing as an official editor at Wikipedia. Not here. Not anywhere. Read WP:OWNER for some insight into the issue that you raise. WE = Wikipedia Editors. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And "view history" would have negated your "(Not signed so I'm not really sure who is making this request)". - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. You are correct. I knew. But the message was more for the editor that is forgetting to sign. I choose not to sign for him and hoped he would discover on his own. The religious homilies were also for his benefit. Sorry you are offended by them. My bad! Misunderstanding each other is a common problem for Wikipedia editors. There were many interpretations to "what you said" because you didn't actually say it. You wrote it. Had you been able to actually say it, I might have understood better. You may find that silly but, actually, it is a core reason as to why Wikipedia Editors (WE) misunderstand each other. Peace. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Note: As we can all see User Malik is not quite up to speed on how things are done around here. No signing. Doesn't start a new thread. ETC. When possible he should learn on his own. The non-thread-editing would have created a problem for all editors...so I was forced to intercede, Maybe he doesnt understand the why, but he can see the how, if he cares to. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collegues

We are all collegues in this effort called Wikipedia. We all want what is best for the site and for our readers. We want to inform them, as best we can, about the articles topic. We want to do that in an impartial unbiased way and create a well-balanced article presenting all viewpoints, if verified. I challenge conflicting editors to make that happen. Bring your best...but don't tear down the other editor/person. You may be adversaries in "Real Life" but HERE....He is your collegue. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously some editors have greater system access than others

Obviously some editors have greater system access than others, hence, the decision making capacity on what reference is reliable and what isn't. In my opinion even with the greatest effort, H A Rose would have been greatly limited to understand and reach out to the vast majority of the Khokhar area's and tribal elders compared with Muhammad Kasim Hindu Shah, Firishta (b. 1570) which literally means history of the angel (Malek).

Here is a reference to its widespread acceptance, Tarikh-i Firishta of Muhammad Kasim Hindu Shah, Firishta (b. 1570). A general history of Muslim India. Extracts in The History of India as Told by its own Historians. The Posthumous Papers of the Late Sir H. M. Elliot. John Dowson, ed. 1st ed. 1867. 2nd ed., Calcutta: Susil Gupta, 1956, vol. 21. 

1. Overview

The Tarikh-i Firishta is a very well known text. It is a general history of India, largely based upon earlier Persian historical works. It is generally regarded as one of the best of the later compilations based on earlier works, and it was relied upon heavily by early European historians of India such as Elphinstone.

it was written by Muhammad Kasim Hindu Shah, Firishta during the reigns of Akbar and Jahangir, (c. late 16th century-early 17th century). Firishta was born in Astrabad on the Caspian Sea circa 1570 CE. His father, Gholam Ali Hindu Shah, traveled, with his family, to Ahmadnagar in India, in order to teach Persian to the prince Miran Husain Nizam Shah, with whom Firishta studied. In 1587 Firishta was serving as a captain of the guard for his former schoolmate’s father, King Murtuza Nizam Shah, when Prince Miram Husain deposed his father. He escaped death, the common fate of a deposed king’s attendants, on account of his former friendship with the prince. He then left Ahmadnagar and moved to Bijapur, reaching that city in 1589, where he served under King Ibrahim Adil Shah II. He completed his history during the reign of Jahangir, sometime during the early seventeenth century.

The excerpts included here deals with the Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznî. Mahmud succeeded his father, Amir Nasiru-d din Subuktigin, to the throne of his in 997 CE, and continued his father’s policy and conducted many more raids until his death in 1030 CE. His numerous incursions into India were largely raids designed to capture spoil in material wealth, slaves and livestock. He is portrayed as a zealous Muslim eager to destroy “idol temples”, but this was probably justification for pillage, since these activities contravened the earlier Arab policy of granting Hindus and Buddhists protected dhimmi status. These raids generally were not conquests resulting in annexation of territory, with the exception of the Punjab, most of which he did annex. Ghaznivite control even of the Punjab passed away with Mahmud. His incessant raiding over the course of almost thirty years, however, clearly destabilized Northern India and paved the way for the Muhammad Ghûrî’s invasion of northern India in 1175 CE, which led to the establishment of the Delhi sultanate.

The excerpt here deals with an important battle which occurred in 1008 CE in Peshwar. In 991 CE Subuktigin defeated decisively a confederation of Indian kings led by Râja Jaipâl of Bathindah in battle at the Kurmah Valley near Peshwar. In 1008 CE Jaipâl’s son, Andpâl, organized another confederacy consisting of the Râjas of Ujjain, Gwâlior, Kanauj and Ajmer, who together fielded an army on the plain of Peshwar even greater than that fielded seventeen years earlier by Jaipâl. The Indian alliance originally dominated the battle, until the elephant carrying the Indian chieftain (presumably Andpâl) panicked and fled when assaulted with flaming naphtha and arrows. This in turn panicked the Indian troops, who were subsequently routed. This ended the attempts at organized resistance against the invaders from Afghanistan.

2. Excerpt

[p. 60]

Mahmud of Ghazni1

Mahmud having thus settled his affairs in India, returned in the autumn to Ghazny, where he remained during the winter. In the spring of the year A.H. 399 (A.D. 1008) he determined again to attack Anundpal, Raja of Lahore, for having lent his aid to Dawood, during the late defection in Multan. Anundpal, hearing of his intentions, sent ambassadors on all sides, inviting the assistance of the other princes of Hindustan, who now considered the expulsion of the Mahomedans from India as a sacred duty. Accordingly, the Rajas of Ujein, Gwaliar, Kalunjar, Kanauj, Delhi, and Ajmir, entered into a confederacy, and collecting their forces, advanced towards the Panjab with the greatest army that had yet taken the field. The Indians and Mahomedans arrived in sight of each other on a plain, on the confines of the province of P'eshawur, where they remained encamped forty days without coming to action. The troops of the idolaters daily increased in number. The Hindu females, on this occasion, sold their jewels, and melted down their golden ornaments (which they sent from distant parts), to furnish resources for the [p. 61] war; and the Gukkurs, and other warlike tribes joining the army, surrounded the Mahomedans, who were obliged to entrench their camp.

Mahmud, having thus secured himself, ordered 6000 archers to the front to endeavour to provoke the enemy to attack his entrenchments. The archers were opposed by the Gukkurs, who, in spite of the King's efforts and presence, repulsed his light troops and followed them so closely, that no less than 30,000 Gukkurs with their heads and feet bare, and armed with various weapons, penetrated into the Mahomedan lines, where a dreadful carnage ensued, and 5000 Mahomedans in a few minutes were slain. The enemy were at length checked, and being cut off as fast as they advanced, the attacks became fainter and fainter, till, on a sudden, the elephant upon which the prince who commanded the Hindus rode, becoming unruly from the effects of the naphtha balls, and the fights of arrows, turned and fled. This circumstance produced a panic among the Hindus, who, seeing themselves deserted by their general, gave way and fled also. Abdulla Taee, with 6000 Arabian horse, and Arslan jazib, with 10,000 Turks, Afghans, and Khiljis, pursued the enemy day and night, so that 20,000 Hindus were killed in the retreat. Of the spoil, thirty elephants (besides other booty) were brought to the King.

Notes:

1. These Extracts are taken from Briggs's translation) and his spelling is retained. Brigg’s vol. I, p. 46. 2. This translation has not been approved by a recognised Muslim historian, the original version of Firishta is generally accepted.Malik (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing some info. As I have said previously, Rose is not a great source. As far as I am concerned, I wouldn't miss him in this article. That does not mean that Firishta is a good source. Far from it. Nor, indeed, does it mean that Dowson etc are good sources, although they did intersperse some commentaries amid their translations. Who is this "recognised Muslim historian" and why is his religious affiliation of significance? I think that if you want to get Firishta in this article then you'll need to test his reliability at our reliable sources noticeboard. - Sitush (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have queried the reliability for factual statements here. - Sitush (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why Muslim historians are important to Muslims is because most of the conflicts in the subcontinent have evolved around religion, recently when the Babri Masjid was demolished by Hindu extremist, that act alone sent Indo Pak relations to all time lows, which still haven't recovered to pre-demolition era and probably unlikely in the foreseeable future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition_of_Babri_Masjid Malik (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malik, just to clarify in case you didn't read the linked discussion, the consensus at WP:RSN is the same as we've said here: ancient sources do not meet WP:RS. They can be used only in a very narrow way: we can very carefully choose short quotations, make sure we attribute the quotations, but not treat them as an actual "source"--merely as what one ancient author had to say on the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right so act on your own advice and undo my deleted edits to help correct this article to what the Khokhars hold true about themselves, rather than enforcing the opinion of H A Rose. I mean what difference does it make to Khokhars to persuade you otherwise, there is no additional prestige or endowment either-way, the whole purpose of this is to set the record straight. By writing false statements about peoples origins won't earn Wikipedia any greater acceptability or recognition infact the opposite couldn't more truer.Malik (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over the article, and thinking a bit more about it, I've decided to remove all but one instance of Rose from it. In many other articles, we remove the old 19th and early 20th century British historians due to concerns about their neutrality and how much actual fact checking they did. We can't add the other information you've proposed for the reasons we discussed, but less reliable information is better than a bunch of info that may or may not be valid. I kept the first one only because it seems fairly neutral and uncontentious. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it was fair and uncontentious I and many other Khokhars wouldn't have been offended by it, its like saying to you that I know better about you than you do about your ancestors, its called suggestive swearing without using blatantly bad language. Its common within most societies that are anti of one another and will through rubbish on each other to belittle one another, i.e in the eye of a Muslim, a Muslim Tarkhan, Nai or Chura etc, is better than a Hindu Brahman, Rajput or Chura etc.

One can understand someone trying to falsely associate with a country or clan to gain benefit, such as Europe, America or Saudis, Rothchilds etc. Only those that are related to it will honour it in time of distress and hardship. In comparison between Afghanistan and India, Afghanistan is a fraction of the Indian economy, military strength and political influence. There are probably much greater commercial benefits in accepting the suggested Gotra, but no because its not true, Khokhar's are from Herat, Afghanistan and descendents of Qutab Shah. As I have said earlier and repeat again there are none whatsoever financial, commercial or social benefits in changing your mindset, apart from setting the record straight. I have visited the castle taken by Malik Sultan (Jasrath) in Sialkot from Rai Bhilam and I have seen the graves of his relatives buried there all carrying Muslim names, I have also visited and paid my respect to Malik Sultan (Jasrath's) at his grave in Kuri Sherif, Pakistan.

The article currently is still biased and needs to be amended to reflect the truth rather than weak assumption by H A Rose tarnishing true facts, much of which are mentioned in Firishta and Ain-e-Akbari.Malik (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your last paragraph: then all you have to do is provide reliable sources. Please review WP:RS if you still don't understand what a reliable source is. But, just to clarify: ancient documents are not, personal opinion/experience is not, and community lore is not. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not personal opinions then what is it? The Khokhar or Khokar are a people of Punjab region of Pakistan and north-western India. According to H. A. Rose, According to Denzil Ibbetson etc. Do you have proof for their lazy and false claims?

All though Khokhars have married into other prominent clans and tribes of the subcontinent, that is not to say that it is 100% of the case with the whole tribe as more that 90% of the marriages are still arranged within, a system that conforms to Muslim Tradition and extremely difficult to breakaway from.

I am in the process of seeking materiel that may endorse my opinion and help your understanding, any problems if it is in Urdu? Until such time, here is the edit I purpose to replace H A Rose's personal views with, this is fair and relevant to what the Khokhars believe and hold true;

Khokhar in Urdu کھوکھر and Arabic خوخار is two words Kho and Khar meaning (High and Robust), jointly interpreted as sovereign or master hence the use of Shah, Malik, Raja, Chaudhry etc. Qutab Shahi Khokhars or Rajput Khokhars are descendents of Qutab Shah from his son Muhammad Shah Khokhar. Qutab Shah along with 5 of his sons accompanied Mahmud Ghazni on his Somnath expedition to Multan, which they successfully achieved as planned. Historical accounts for this are available in Firishta and Ain-e-Akbari. In the 12 century, the first leadership encounter of Muhammad Shah Khokhar in Firishta is at the time of Mongol invasion southwards into northern Punjab which he successfully halted followed by peace truce and marriage between Qutab Shah and Changez Khan's grandchildren, hence why the Mughal's didn't reattempt to enter India forcibly, until the 16th Century and when they did, remained closely allied and developed further relationships with the Khokhar's the most respected being Shah Jahangir. Shah Jahangir died on his journey to Sarai Alamgir to preserve his body, the entrails were removed and buried in Ghazi Khokhar Gujrat and the body was then transferred to Lahore to be buried in Shahdara Bagh, a suburb of Lahore, Pakistan. I have visited the Mazar of Shah Jahangir in Gujrat, there is still an annual mayla held there that is attended by thousands of people.Malik (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize what was there was still a potential problem. I've gone ahead and removed both Rose and Ibbetson. As for your suggested additions, first get the sources, then I'll comment about how to add the info (for example, most of that doesn't belong in the lead, but could go elsewhere in the article). Sources in Urdu could be okay, but they will still need to meet WP:RS; you'll have to be able to give some detailed info about the author and publisher, as well as a good context for whatever info you want to add--it's important that you don't, for example, just pick out a single sentence that has a meaning you want and ignore surrounding material. English material is, of course, preferred. However, let me clarify something: since you've just said you're going to search for sources to endorse your opinion, i'm going to be far far more strict on what you present. Your approach is literally the exact opposite of how an encyclopedia (or any neutral reference work) should be written. You don't start with an opinion, then find sources to support it. Instead, you look at all available sources, then figure out what to say based on them. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misread my point, my opinion is formed by the sources I have read or elders that I personally met and had the pleasure to be with and hear their own family history and see records maintained within their Shajrah by their Maras. For now, I would like to draw your attention to Sir Denzil Ibbetson page 172, The Khokhar's and how he splits them into 3 categories Qutab Shahi Khokhar's, Rajput Khokhar's and Jat Khokhar's, but they all come under Khokhars because they share a commonality and it appears that Qutab Shahi marry within other Qutab Shahi Khokhars or Awans, and Rajputs with other Rajputs and Jats likewise with other Jats. He also acknowledges that their must have been a separate Khokhar(Qutab Shahi)tribe that left a very admired heritage, hence, the name is very popular amongst smaller clans throughout Punjab.Malik (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I'll repeat this: provide sources. And, again, last time, "your elders" are not sources. Please understand--I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm not saying your elders are wrong. I am willing to believe that what they are telling you is the "truth". However, Wikipedia doesn't concern itself with the truth. We have to look for information that can be verified by the reader. So, while I mean no disrespect, until such time as you produce sources, there's really nothing else I can do to help you here. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the summary drawn from Sir Denzil Ibbetson as above?81.100.165.35 (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


You can't have it both ways. You can't reject Rose because of his age and status, but keep Ibbetson. I removed Rose under the general idea that most of the colonial reports on caste are suspect. Ibbetson falls under exactly the same problems. If you want to include Ibbetson, then we should go back to including Rose. Neither is particularly better or worse. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to you, Wikipedia and your readers, the content of the current 'Khokhar' article is based on what reference?Malik (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


"The Khokhars, article references"
You can see the references in the article. If you think any one in specific doesn't meet WP:RS (a guideline which, as far as I can tell, you haven't read yet), please discuss it here. Also, from now on, please use standard talk page formatting. That means, when you reply to someone, add one more colon after before your paragraphs than the person before you. It automatically indents, so it's easier to follow. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lets start with 'The Khokhars', obviously there is a lot of material, references available that confirm that they were more than just an agricultural tribe. I have a map dating from 1206 to 1526 taken from The Delhi Sultanate that shows a vast area of Punjab, just a little under the size of present day Punjab in Pakistan showing as 'Khokhar', not many other agricultural tribes can make the same claim. Actually, I would like to post that map onto the The Khokhar page Malik (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need a third party reliable source to make the claim, not just your interpretation of an old map.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Red Pen is correct, Malik. Would you please read some of our basic policies regarding how material is included in Wikipedia? You should start with the neutrality policy, the restriction against original research, the requirement that Wikipedia information be verified, and the guideline that explains what is or is not a reliable source. It's basically impossible for us to work together if you just keep talking about changes you want to make that are fundamentally incompatible with how Wikipedia works. The section title is "some have greater system access than others". That's actually correct: editors who follow our policies and guidelines have "greater access" than those who do not. Please join us on the side of following the rules. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me actually phrase this a different way. Malik, what you're doing is that you're looking at original documents, data, and evidence, and trying to put it together and interpret it and figure out what the "truth" is. That's great, important work--it's basically academic research. And you should keep doing that work, and then try to publish in an academic journal on Indian history, sociology, or something like that. But, and I know this may sound strange, it is very much not what Wikipedia does. Editors are never allowed to interpret evidence themselves--all we can do is report on what reliable secondary sources have already said. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that at least you have admitted that Wikipedia isn't interested in the truth and you have already removed some of the content from the two of the reliable sources Rose and Ibbetson, accepting that their research at best was doubtful. However still most of the page is reflective of Roses views. i.e What is the relationship between the Khokhars and Garkkhars? there isn't any, yet you have that as one of the headings, infact if any thing there is a relationship between the Awans and Khokhars as per most of the references listed on the page including Rose and Ibbetson.Malik (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is right there in the policies "Verifiability, not truth". If you are here to spread the truth and right great wrongs then you are in the wrong place. Wikipedia is here to build an encyclopedia based upon the best representation of the views of the modern academic community we can.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an interesting link about Khokhars, although my views differ from it, but you might think its a balanced article, http://www.punjabics.com/PunjabTheLandOfLegends/indian_tomb_of_ancient_athens.html 81.100.165.35 (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's interesting or not, but I do know that it's not a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 22 February 2013

Khokhar is one of the surname used by jat/jaat People. Although Khokhar are sparsely speard all over northern India but still are in majority in Baghpat District of Uttar Pradesh. The main villages of Khokhar's are like Teliwada,chhaprauli , badarkha ,hewa ,rathora etc


Please add this also, thanks 59.178.57.206 (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, please say where and how you would like this information to be added, in a Please change or add X to Y format. Vacation9 22:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Merge

I think that this article should be probably merged with Khokhar Gharbi as the subject seems to be the very same tribe. Why do we have two separate articles here on Wikipedia? AsadUK200 (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)AsadUK200[reply]


Notables

Please dont add non-notable names to the list here. Only add those people who already have existing Wikipedia articles, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.54.236.232 (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant and spurious material removed

Someone has readded spurious and irrelevant material to the article, which has already previously been deliberated upon and removed; so I am again removing this, thanks. 39.54.245.148 (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Col (r) Mumtaz Khan[reply]

malik khokhar

who are malik khokhar actually — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.49.85.163 (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC) THE MALIK KHOKHAR OR KHOKHAR(QUTB SHAHI) are the ALAVI SADAATS they are from the BANI HASHIM They are not KHOKHAR but the title khokhar they adopt due to the their maternal ancestory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.54.7.208 (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC) yes agree and their origin is from Hazrat abbass ibne Ali lineage. and Aun Qutb shah bagdadi is the real ancestors of Awan Alvi tribe. the other people who claim lineage from Hanafiyah ibne Ali not proven and their claims probably myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.50.125.204 (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary heading

My name is Raja Mustafa and Im Khokhar rajput. Khokhar rajput are native of subcontinant.we are in Mahabharta tribe.according to Indian books and according to none muslim writers books, Khokhar are native and rajput tribe.Muslim historians confused history,Because khokhars are hindú origin And only khokhars fought against muslim inviders.Gakhars are confusing every one,In one side they are rejecting conection with khokhars and other hand they are using in thier genealogy with the powerful and important Khokhar chiefs.Raja hodi,Sultan kab or kob,bustam Raja ,Raja hast ,raja shaikha khokhar,raja jasrat Khokhar. Khokhars killed ghori,not Gakhars. Many khokhars converting muslims used to Gakhar. And if khokhars are sons of qutub shah,why they didnt use siyad.This is only that many khokhars convert muslims in hand of qutub shah,same like many Khokhar convert muslims in mughul darbar and badshah give them name of khuwaja,shiekh etc...Khokhars have more them 100 sub divisiones.Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.3.17 (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Normally other than fatmi lineage rarely other hashmiete off shoot adopt sayyid title. it is not related to tribe lineage but a title! some makhdoom who trace the same lineage to Muhammad Zaman Ali urf khokhar son of Aun qutb shah through Abbas ibne ali lineage do adopt title syed as well but rarely. Abbasi's and dhanyal tribe also hashmiete but they adopt title raja. that doesnot make them local. Khokhar killed ghori is also weak assumption story. their are 3 different story views of it either khokhar, gakkhar or hashahin group killed him. And hashashin assasin group is more solid in past. but Indians, Britishans and bias people promote otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.50.118.185 (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:V. This page is for discussion of improvements to the article, not expression of random rants and original research. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper source

Someone attempted to add this newspaper article but made a hash of it and removed perfectly valid academic sources in the process, so I reverted them. I've just taken a quick look at the thing and note that it is written by Khushwant Singh (I assume it is the same person and not someone else sharing the same name). It looks very puffed-up to me but perhaps there is something in it that could be used. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khokhars are JAT

Khokhars in the Punjab, Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh are predominately Jat people. By changing and editing this article wrongly you are hiding the truth and disrespecting Khokhars. I am a Khokhar JAT from Village Kansala, Rohtak in Haryana. I am not saying that no Khokhars are Rajputs. But they are predominately JATS. So edit this page whoever has the authority to do so. Let the truth prevail and nothing else. Jaat45 (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:VNT. - Sitush (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are and its a truth! Okhajeyha (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are Jats🔥 Prerit Tushir (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2021

Khokhar or Khokar is a gotra of Jats found in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh in India.Khokhar is a derivative of Kukar. The Khokhars are found in Rajputs also. They are found in the Punjab state. There are about 52 villages of the Khokhar Jats in Mathura and Aligarh districts.

Haral, Ajra, Bhalu and Bhala are the sub gotras of the Khokhar Jats. In Pakistan Khokhars are followers of Islam. Iabbykhokhar (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khokhars are basically Jatts

Khokhar or Khokar is a gotra of Jatts found in Punjab Pakistan and Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh in India. Khokhar is a derivative of Kukar. The Khokhars are found in Rajputs also. They are found in the Punjab state. There are about 52 villages of the Khokhar Jatts in Mathura and Aligarh districts.

Haral, Ajra, Bhalu and Bhala are the sub gotras of the Khokhar Jats. In Pakistan Khokhars are follower of Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iabbykhokhar (talk • contribs) 08:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is written 'against' Khokhar and not 'about' Khokhar. Therefore it is factually inaccurate

Please make sure that this is written by somebody who is an historian rather than someone who condones barbarians 124.123.106.0 (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramlal Khokhar

Please include this point, Ramlal Khokhar killed Ghori. This has to be a part of this article. Otherwise, it's just a whitewash of false/incomplete information. VimalDubeyC (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khokhars are predominantly "MUSLIMS"

Baba Fariduddin Ganjshakar mentions in his accounts about this tribe becoming Muslim, secondly Firishta has also recorded the same thing so please let me tell you that to whichever category Khokhars belong, but religiously, they are Muslims. Wallstreet911 (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khokhars follow "ISLAM" and are "MUSLIMS"

According to the census in British India of year 1900, all the Khokhars who were recorded in the census appeared to be predominantly Muslims which clarified their religion. Wallstreet911 (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raj sources are not considered to be reliable sources as WP:RAJ - and even if they were, you qualified your assertion by using the words "appeared" and "predominantly" Arjayay (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protect this page

Please protect this page as the page is disturbed by disruptive editing and wrong info, Thanks. Wallstreet911 (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The information is provided by this page is wrong

Khokhars belongs to jaat community... As you read the hindi translation of this page then you will see that khokhar also belongs to jaat community... I will also provide the link of hindi translation of this page

https://hi.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%96%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%96%E0%A4%B0

Please correct this page as soon as possible... 106.210.118.201 (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Wikipedias are not considered reliable sources - Arjayay (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct this page

Khokhars belongs to jaat community as well as they are hindus in india...

If you came to india and go to haryana, kansala village... See the reality thereafter you found out they are jaat and belongs to jaat community as well as believes in Hinduism

Some fake people changed this page Please i request you to correct this page 106.210.118.201 (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Wikipedia is solely based on what published, reliable, independent sources say, not what people think when visiting somewhere - that is original research, which is not allowed in our articles. - Arjayay (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khokhar&oldid=1114666322"