Talk:Tanoli/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Tanoli. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article re write

I have re written the article from it's previous form but have included the theory of where they theorise they are possibly from. I have evidence from many sources to suggest that they are descendants of the Janjua. 'Tehreek e Janjua' (sahiwal Press) by Raja Mohd. Anwar Khan and 'Chronicles of Earley Janjuas' Dr Hussain Khan are both sources for the given info.

I have for obvious reasons removed the 'aboriginal' tribe references, sounded too much like a colonial write up.--Raja 19:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Tidy up

Have wikified and done a tidy up as best as I can after consulting some references (and lots of research) also added and further elaborated the entire article. Please feel free to add further info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.207.76 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 7 January 2008 --Enric Naval (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism 202.83.173.117

You are vandalising a page you know next to nothing about. I have provided fully referenced sources and yet you have provided not one. If you continue to vandalise this page I will recommend your banning from wiki. You arent even prepared to talk about this and your uncivil behaviouir towards other pages is also clear. Cease immediately. I am reverting this page back to it's original fully sourced version.--Raja 17:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Pakhtun Tanoli

Hello and thank you for your input here. I would stress that;

a) The sources that I quoted, I actually have copies of them to back up proof,so I am surprised that you question them IF indeed you have their copies as you state. I can even post a picture here of the texts in question for the ones you have questioned if you would like? I dont believe you anticipated this offer, but I more so dont believe you have consulted the texts yourself as YOU suggest.

b) The Janjua have no need to use another's history seeing as their own history is fully referenced and sourced as was this article until you starting inputting nonsensical 'point of view info' without any referenced citations. But regarding your delusion of Tanolis baring no attachment at all to Janjuas, it is claimed elsewhere (not by me or any other Janjua solely) of this connection and it's synonimous relevance to each other yet again [1] were this not the case then why are people mentioning it?! I dont agree all Tanolis are Janjua, but there are true Raja Tanoli descendants (real Tanoli Janjuas) who have genelogical tables showing this and have been mentioned by even Mughal Jehangir, so where you claim that it doesn't show on the Nawab's genelogical table I cannot understand BECAUSE had he actually had a genelogical table in the first place, then surely the Barlas Mughal or Abbasi theories would be put to rest would it not!

c) You have been 'revert warring' an article without any discussion at all. I have incorporated your Pashtun origin theory into the article and you completely deleted the Janjua theory? Thats rather uncivil and immature considering there isn't any mention of a 'Tanoli nation' in Hazara pre colonial era texts.

d) Before accusing me of any nonsense please see this link [2] which is undoubtedly a mention of a Tanoli Punjabi Musalmaan, so before badmouthing Punjabis, read your OWN history properly. And in case you call that a one off, here is Subedar Kalandhar Khan of the 91st in his full Tanoli glory [3]

If you want a proper discussion, with respect, according to wiki ethics I will engage with you (though I am very busy, I will Inshallah accomodate you) but if you want to be abusive (which till date I have NOT been towards you) then I will disengage and report you.

The text Chronicles of Early Janjuas by Dr Hussain Khan is written BY A TANOLI, so how can you ignore it? He was a professor of history at Peshawar University no less, so chances of a deluded Punjabi cannot be accepted (I can print his background from his book on here with an actual picture too if you want proof?). Keep things in perspective. I dont believe every person who calls themself a Tanoli is a genuine Tanoli by descent, they are all geographically named instead of by blood I believe, especially given the Swati example you give which is interesting. But to totally deny EVERY contrary evidence without debate indicates a Point of View, which isn't encyclopedic. (This is an encyclopedia, hence neutrality must be maintained. This is NOT a eulogy page).

Secondly, I have not come across a SINGLE source by any historian which records Tanolis as Pashtun, absolutely none. I would appreciate a Yousafzai text which would accept them as their brethren (Again THERE IS NONE) I would gladly accept a local account for this by neighbouring Yousafzais etc but again I am dissappointed here too. 'Al Afghaniya Tanoli' is a strange case. Pashtuns are not the be all and end all of all things Afghan. Syed's are absolutely not Pashtun, yet they are Afghans by localised centuries of inhabitance and cultural practice. So Tanolis culturally Afghan background is not disputed. But to change them ethnically, give them another faith i.e. Pakhtunwali, is a bit far fetched and extreme to say the least.

Now be civil and engage properly.--Raja 10:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

January cleanup

This article is in a complete mess at the moment and needs to be wikified asap. The current debate of origin is taking place away from this page and should be discussed here.

Although citations have been requested for info (personal opinions and points of view are not allowed on wikipedia, all assertions MUST be cited and sourced).

The citations have been requested since autumn '06 and still none have been provided. I can only conclude that none are available, hence not applicable for this article.

Unless citations are provided, the article will be dealt with as per wiki policy and previous 'cited version will be used. Please feel free to debate and contribute anything here so that the matter can be discussed and article progressed.--Raja 14:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This article does not need any alterations. This Supersingha needs to get back to his own pages to do with his own race and ethic group.

Strange, because here is a Punjabi Tanoli Punjabi Tanoli Army Subedar so your implied racism must now take this into account. Infact in Sir Ian Scott's book, "A British Tale of Indian and Foreign Service: The Memoirs of Sir Ian Scott", that, "Amb is mainly occupied by Tanaolis, who, like the somewhat mixed population of Phulera, are not Pathans, and do not speak Pushtu. The small trans Indus state of Amb state is, however, entirely Pathan." (Radcliffe, 1999, p66, p67). So which ethnic are we talking about here?!

It is apparent that he is interfering with issues he knows next to nothing aboput. If Wikipedia does not bar him from meddling then there are other ways to deal with this problem.

Such as?

There is enough evidence to justify the assertions put fprward in the references section.

Great! Please provide them instead of "alleging to bring it forward". Thats IF you have it.....

I have gone around researching on the Wiki site on various issuesthis so-called Raja has put his nose into and it seems he is not satisfied with anything that contradicts his obsession with trying to prove something that is not historically true. He is not even willing to accept Tanawalis own historians nor the Tanawal ruling family who reject they are janjuas and also that they ever had an ancestor from that line as so adequately written by Pashtun Tanoli.

Funny because the same royal family dont know their origins. Infact they dont know if they are Aryan, Indic, Mongolian or Pashtun at all. They have never confirmed it because they simply dont know. But your use of language is very poor.

Mr Supersingha says they are wrong and is using the tricks of the trade of Wikipedia editing to put conditions on this article that is wholly correct. Well Mr Supersingha I will provide thse citiations and if I do that then will you put up and shut once and for all? You will need to aoplogise to the whole Tanoli nation and Pashtun Tanoli to. Tahirkheli 16:38 7 January 2007

Again, poor language. But either way, instead of posting up threats to provide the info, why dont you save yourself the time and effort and actually do it instead of threatening to do it. But before you go, here is another connection with Janjuas ;-) [4]--Raja 15:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a tanoli and proud to be one. I know that my ancesters were tanolis and that is enough for me to know and make me proud of my race.Tanolis are a brave and distinct people of the tanawal mountains and they spread from Mardan to Baluchistan.There is a pashtun tribe in and around Queeta, who proudly say they are Tanolis and so do my brothers in Mardan, who are in a majority there, in around four villages. Tanolis are a race with a proud and prosperous history; so it is common for people to relate themselves to us, we should not see this as a negative aspect but we should not start believing these allegations.And secondly mr.janjua, what do you mean by stating that the royal family doesnt know of its origins, i thought you were a sensible person before you typed that, they are also tanolis and all the tanolis are from the same bloodline,if you have any doubts clear them because im from that family and i confirm it,A TANOLI WAS A TANOLI, IS A TANOLI AND WILL REMAIN AS A TANOLI !!!

Firstly, you misread what I wrote. When I wrote the main Nawab family doesn't know it's origins, I meant in terms of whether they were Barlas Mughal or Pathan Yousafzai. That was actually documented in a national article. They ofcourse know they are Tanoli. I have absolute respect for the brave Tanolis, but the derogatory remarks made by the members above really do put a shame to the name Im saddened to say. The info presented in the article referred to a mentioned link to Janjuas, but also highlighted other links too. This is an encyclopedic site and therefore all sides of the story must be presented in an open and fair way.--Raja 23:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mumtaz

Im not going to get drawn in to the above arguments (goodluck!). But I did have a couple of questions for you, which I hope, in the vein of respect for the truth, we can atleast make a gesture to talk in a professional manner about info we do know?

Right, before I begin, I fully understand Tanwal has many tribes etc but my interest is also in tribes in general.

I wanted to ask, if you can help;

1. I have heard there are some Tanoli branches in Balochistan, do you have any info as to their connection with the main two septs, Hindwal and Palowal.

2. I've read somewhere that there are some Tanoli settlers in Kashmir, do you have any knowledge of them?

3. The Nalwa campaign against the Tareen chiefs confederacy, was quite a big chapter in the life of Hazara, and I was thinking of writing a neutral article as I find much info from the Sikh historians to be quite biased against the Tareen confederacy. Do you have much info on this? If not, do you have any sources in Pakistan NWFp that can help with this?

4. Can you dig up any info on the Tanoli tribes alliance witht the Abdali campaign of India? This is an abundantly large portion of history which isn't well covered or info collated on. It would help to have this covered. You can take this up, or if you, I can help you write this article, following wiki rules, literary language, formatting etc.

Despite our debates and rants, I reckon the article here has massively suffered. Much of the tribes accomplishments (whatever their origin, ethnic makeup, I can't care anymore) are being ignored and relegated to 2nd place.

It's up to you if you wanna help, I am offering you a chance to improve this article as well as helping me with it. Likewise, any info I can provide you (I have a large enough library on Northern Indo and certain aspects of Afghan history) I'll be happy to help out.

Let's start again. Rozeh are around the corner and I don't want this going on through Ramadan too....--Raja 11:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

aoa to all

i am a tanoli and very interested in the history of my tribe. i tried to mail to the person who offers to give the scanned pages of "tareekh-e-tanolian" but my mail bounced back due to invalid email address or some reason i dont know. I request to tanolis or whoever has got any literature about our tribe, please send me the data or identify me the book shops from where i can buy these books. my email address is "farhanullahk@gmail.com"

your cooperation in this regard would be highly appreciated. regards farhan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.208.171 (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the book "TAREEKH-E-TANOLIAN". its been written in 1939. I will scan all the pages of that book. If anyone interested, Please email me, I will also send you those pages. [sales@ugowireless.biz] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.29.53.158 (talk) 12:51, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Brothar we are mughals and we are warriors. Do not believe these confised people who say we are pashtoon. We are not. --Dil tarasha (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

New liar

Brothers and meani aulad. Why you make us pashtun when we are proud mughals? we have the books and proof to state this, so why lie? are you an insecure pashtun cartoon wannabe? Daffa ho!

I dont know about the dirtiest style of language. sir when you are talking about castes, do you think that what everybody said about his cast or nation inluding you is quranic words. The authenticity of Hadith can be challenged, do you understand what I mean? why should I tell a lie? what can I get? furthermore, what I stated, I did nothing on my own.In reserch you must be open hearted,you would have heard sometimes a fool can teach wisdom to wise.I told that I read a statement in the book of the Atchison college about most respectable student of that time Sultan Muhammad Khan of BERE that we TANOLIES are descendent of PATRIARCH YOUSAFpbuh sir you can get this book from my friend BASHARAT KHAN presently working in STATE LIFE OFFICE FAROOQA BAD PLAZA MANSEHRA ROAD ABBOTTABAD SIR THIS BOOK IS ALMOST 126 YEARS OLD I have produced all this just to prove that I m not LIAR . Akhtar Saeed akhtarsaeed60@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.155.36 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 27 March 2008

This is impossible, since the lineage of Yousaf pbuh never continued, so what are you talking about? Thats a lie and unciteable claim --Dil tarasha (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

since the book of Atchisons college student is written by English and in English Yaqoob is written as Jacob, Dawood is written as David. Similarly Yousaf is written as Joseph. You know that the christians follow Hazrat Essa allaih islam, they just write it as Jesus, whereas, we the Muslims respect all prophets and we write P.B.U.H with their names as a sign of respect. In the book of Ghulam Nabi Khan, he claims we the Tanolis are descendents of Yousaf Allaih Islam. Therefore, being muslim i wrote as P.B.U.H with Yousaf Allaih Islam. whereas in that atchisons book is only written as JOSEPH. And hence such a detail is enough to prove my point. so stop reffering to me as liar, oyu would have confirmed what i said and i didn't say anything without any proof so you just don't want to admit that the milk is white not black. i m telling u its white but u still believe its black. Being a civilized peson you don't have a right to call anyone a liar without any solid proof and again whatever and whosoever wrote in history books is never as true as THE VERSES OF THE HOLY QURAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.155.36 (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

--99.233.155.36 (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)AKHTAR SAEED

Tanoli page being deleted

Hey come on guys, stop fighting over this mughal/pashtun thing, if you guys are tanolis,you should be proud of your great history and should be proud to be tanolis rather than associating yourselves with other tribes. Our history is great, thats why many tribes have associated themselves with us. But this fight here will get you no where, by the way the Tanoli page here on wikipedia is being considered for deletion, if you guys dont stop vandalising this page it will be deleted soon. So please only add notable and relevant material to the page and try to make this page presentable. Cheers!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitanoli (talk • contribs) 02:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Captain James Abbott This book also mentions the fact that the original language of the Tanolis was Pashto but some have forgotten it and now speak Hindko in areas where the majority speaks this language. spoke Pashto. Pashto also known as Pakhto, Pushto, Pukhto Pashtoe, Pashtu, Pushtu or Pushtoo) is an Iranian language spoken by Pashtuns living in Afghanistan and western Pakistan. ... It has been suggested that Hindku be merged into this article or section. ...

I dont know about the dirtiest style of language. sir when you are talking about castes, do you think that what everybody said about his cast or nation inluding you is quranic words. The authenticity of Hadith can be challenged, do you understand what I mean?

Akhtar Saeed akhtarsaeed60@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.155.36 (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

semi-protect the page already

Today 27 March the page has been vandalized and reverted 9 times, 4 times by 80.37.184.60 [5] [6] [7] [8], once by 99.233.155.36 [9] and then 4 times by 80.37.184.60 [10] [11] [12] [13] until he was blocked for a week. It appears to be the very same ~~idiot~~ vandal that vandalized the page so many times that caused it to be nominated for deletion. I didn't follow the history, but his accounts were blocked and now he's resorting to using IPs --Enric Naval (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

P.D.:In 25 March it was vandalized 3 times by apparently the same person, also from an IP [14] [15] [16]. That same IP vandalized the deletion nomination of tanoli. It's obvious it's the same vandal again and again, maybe two different vandals at most --Enric Naval (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

After i reported it at WP:RPP, The page was protected for a period of one week by User:Gb. The main vandal has also been blocked for one week by User:Hersfold. Maybe we can have a week now to focus on other parts of wikipedia! TheProf - T / C 23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NO doubt there are quite a few vandals out there who are trying to mess around with this page and most add unnecessary material for example a few weeks ago a person had added the name of some shop keeper to the list titled famous Tanolis of today, which is in no way notable enough to be put on Wikipedia. I do consider myself an expert on this page as I have ample knowledge of the history and present status of the Tanoli tribe. I am keeping watch on this page and will certainly edit any irrelevant material and also correct the grammar where a user has added relevant material in an unimpressive manner.Wikitanoli (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

removal of tags

The "dispute" tag has been up since March 2007 [17], because the article said that Tanoli were Pashkun. Since then it has been made clear that it was an unsourced claim introduced by an abusive user that has kept copy/pasting the same non-referenced version several times per day, using sockpuppets and IPs. Since the article no long claims the Pashkun link, and since the vandal removes the tag anyways, I think this tag is no longer necessary.

The "Inappropriate tone" tag was added on 21 March when the non-vandalized version was up [18]. Unfortunately, no explanation was goven on the talk page about the specific concers, and we only have the edit summary of "peacock language, weasel words, etc" to judge if it still necessary. Looking at the differences between the tagged version and actual version, it appears that most un-attributed claims have been cleaned up. The tag can be removed, and I suggest to list the specific concerns when adding it again. I also advice the regular editors to source the paragraphs and attribute according to WP:NPOV instructions things like "the Heroic Tanoli Khan" to the book where they got the sentence from. I advice using the inline citations with the "ref" tag. This would prevent the re-tagging of the article, and the deletion by well-intentioned editors of stuff that looks like WP:OR original research or NPOV when it's actually a direct quotation from a history book. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for the "ref" tag. I added the {{Morefootnotes}} tag to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I restored the cleanup tags that a IP took out. The article *does* require cleanup and *does* have an unencyclopaedic tone. The solution is improving the article, not deleting the tags. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this is an encyclopaedic site, which grows by contributions from every where, now if you think that it needs cleanup or correction, then please write that in the discussion section, and specifically where you think correction is needed (that is if you cannot correct it yourself). Adding a tag is useless, unless you notify here about views concerning the problems in the article. I did not remove the tag concerning footnotes becauase yes, there are no footnotes connecting with the references, but I have put in bold the lines which have been written by Authors and I have also mentioned page numbers of those books where these lines are taken from. This does have the same effect that a footnote would serve but still, yes, i believe footnotes must be included in the article and the tag should be kept there. But the other tags are not clear and the person who has put them up, should write his concerns here and specifically where he thinks correction is needed? Cheers Wikitanoli (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic site and this article clearly fails to live up to Wikipedia quality standards. Therefore I added the {{cleanup}} tag back again. There is still an on-going edit war here, so I don't see why that template was removed.

/ Raven in Orbit (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected

The article should now be temporarily semi-protected. Hopefully this will make it possible to rework it to an acceptable level. Any suggestions?
/ Raven in Orbit (t|c) 20:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be good, but the guys at WP:RFPP will surely say that there hasn't been enough disruption. You should rework it anyways, and just revert every time the vandal appears --Enric Naval (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire, a short while ago I semi-protected the page for a period of two weeks. _GB^T/C 21:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks GB. *phew* -- Fullstop (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

ps: @ Raven/Enric: Mughal Kayanis has the same problems. The OR/SYNTH is much more obvious there. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well folks, two weeks passes like nothing and I'm not sure how to proceed from here. Neither of the contributions below makes any sense to me. I wish I knew more about Afghanistan! Maybe some CEing is all that is needed? I guess this is not a candidate for a permanent semi-protection yet.

Fullstop, I've added that one to my watchlist. I assume there are a series of related articles in this case.

/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 19:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume that if there was anything in the material below that should have been added, it would have happened by now. As it stands its just more contextless, unsourced, apropros-of-nothing stuff.

As for being a series... Yes, they are a series in that they all say close to nothing. They are a series of hagiographic cruft, descent blah from royalty blah or nobility blah or some such thing. No content, no proper referencing, no wikification, no love, no care. Just lots of cut-and-paste with a liberal sprinkling of bold face and italics. And of course the obligatory "notable foo" magnets. Other than "notable foo" and the leads, one could fill them with Lorem ipsums and no one would notice. The Kayani Mughal article should be speedied for atrocious OR. Its full of it.

This article on the other hand is better than the rest of the series in that it at least has a reasonable lead section (though the prose needs cleanup). The rest of it needs a sharp shave with Occam's razor. Its sheer unreadable. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, there is a lot of blanking out ahead then. I'll be working a lot over a few days, but I'll try to stay tuned.

Maybe some more semi-protection is handy here? Or even AfD? I'll have a look at it.

Cheers

/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 22:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've semi protected the article for another month. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

version posted off-site

I see that our friend User:Pakhtun Tanoli has decided to get link removed* his own website for his favourite version of this article --Enric Naval (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that anyone really cares who (what?) these Tanolis are, we haven't seen any sources to suggest that they are not Pashtun either. All we have are some rah-rah hotheads flinging ad-hominems at each other.

So, given that this article lacks sources as much as Pakhtun Tanoli's version does, I thought I'd apply the same pitiful "research" methods, and this is what I came up with:

1. Gbooks...

"A Glossary of the Tribes & Castes of the Punjab & North-west Frontier" (1914)
This is the only source on gbooks that refers to the Tanolis of this article.
- p. 455 (index): "Tanaoli, Tanoli, Tanol, Tol, Tholi, Tahola, Tarnoli -- a tribe of Hazara"
- p. 216: "I have included in my account of the Pathans a few allied races, who though not usually acknowledged as Pathans, have by long association become assimilated with them in manners, customs, and character. They chiefly occupy Hazara, and are called Dilazak, Swati, Jadun and Shilmani."
- p. 255: "The remainder of the district, that is the northern and central portion, is held by tribes which, whatever their origin, have a long association with the Pathans in language and customs, the Jadun holding down the Dor valley from Bagra upwards to Mangal, the Tanaoli holding the Tanawal tract in the west center of the district between Abbottabad and the Indus, much of which belongs to the semi-independent Nawab of Amb, while the Swatis hold the whole mountain country north of Mansehra and Gari Habiullah."
- p. 256: [Section title: Races allied to the Pathan] The Tanáoli are said to claim descent from Amír Khán, a Barlás Mughal, whose two sons Hind Khán and Pal Khán crossed the Indus some four centuries ago and settled in Tanawál of Hazára; and they say that they are named after some other place of the same name in Afghánistán. But there can be little doubt that they are of Aryan and probably of Indian stock. We first find them in the trans-Indus basin of Mahában, from which they were driven across the Indus by the Yúsufzai some two centuries ago. They now occupy Tanáwal or the extensive hill country between the river and Urash plains. They are divided into two great tribes, the Hindwál and Pallál, of which the latter occupy the northern portion of Tanáwal, and their territory forms the jagdír of the semi-independent Chief of Amb. Of the 40,000 Hazára Tanaolis, 8,737 returned themselves in 1,881 as Pallál, 1,964 as Dafrál, a sect pf the Pallál, and only 1,076 as Hindwál. It is probably that clans were not recorded in the Amb territory where the Hindwál, and indeed the great mass of Tanáolis dwell. They are an industrious and peaceful race of cultivators; but their bad faith has given rise to the saying--Tanáoli be-qauli, "the Tanáoli's word is naught."

2. Gscholar:

"Livelihood Strategies in North-West Pakistan" (June 2005)
This is the only source on gscholar that refers to the Tanolis of this article.
- p. 13 [Chapter: Village profiles] [Section: Gali Badral (foothills)]
  In the side panel, the Tanolis are mentioned as distinct from the Mughals. No other refs on page to Tanolis.
- p. 47 repeats data from p. 13

Key phrases from above related to the Pashtun versus Mongol-Turkic issue:

"whatever their origin, have a long association with the Pathans in language and customs"
"though not usually acknowledged as Pathans, have by long association become assimilated with them in manners, customs, and character"
"claim descent from Amír Khán, a Barlás Mughal"
"there can be little doubt that they are of Aryan and probably of Indian stock"
in the present-day distinct from the Moghuls

Conclusions:

the "Pashtun" thing is not altogether incorrect (see what Pathan redirects to)
the "Moghul Barlas" thing is based on the claim of descent from one "Amír Khán."

Both pieces of information are in fact fairly obvious in the first para of the "Origins and History" section.

And... while the "Moghul Barlas" stuff in the lead is -- in the way it is presented -- false, there is absolutely no need to make that assertion in the lead anyway since its dealt with properly in the first section.

The key terms in "claim to descend" and "allied with" are not noted anywhere in the article. The use of such distinguishing vocabulary would have cleared the air long ago.

-- Fullstop (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

quick note, if the source uses "Pathan", then let's use Pathan, since someone might write an article describing the differences between them and Pakhtun. Looking at the explanations on the target article and their sources, Pathan and Pakhtun are overlapping groups, but they are not identical, and there seem to be a lot of subtle distintions depending on where they live. For example, Hindkowans are Pathan, but they are not Pakhtun. Now, if I can just finish other articles and come here to add those sources to the article..... --Enric Naval (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

yep, good plan. All should be well if we stick to the sources, to include the "claim to" and "association with" clauses. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

July '08

Have attempted to clear the article up a little, somewhat. I think what would be a good way forward with this would be to state on this section what areas need to be addressed, then deal with them one step at a time.

Section I believe should be worked on;

In line citations

Provision of citations for certain key claims.

I fully concur the above that the use of language is very important (i.e. Allied and claim descent from points etc) --~Raja~ (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted at crarifying some points here as well as corrected some mistakes in the article. (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternative names

I have deleted the introductory sentence in which some unsourced/non-referenced alternative versions of tanoli are inclued. I have researched this thoroughly and there is no historical or contemporary evidence for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moarrikh (talk • contribs) 17:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference of the "Hazara" thing was also a reference for those names, it's Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province.

However, if you say that you didn't find any other place where those names where used, then, I guess that they might have been local corruptions of the name (aka non-notable alternative names) so I have no problem with removal. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What the sourced/source-able "Tanol, Tol, Tholi, Tahola, Tarnoli" variations do is establish...

a) the context for redirects; b) that there is significant variation in the name (indeed, it would be remarkable if there weren't any variations); c) that the Urdu transliteration is gratuitous (as transliterations of demonyms/anthroponyms/toponyms invariably are--they are after all a reflection of oral tradition). In my experience, these almost always reflect a systemic bias, for instance some bureaucratic definition (e.g. for census purposes) that something must be done just so. Such pseudo-precision misrepresents the multifaceted linguistic landscape. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Errr... I guess that this translates as "let's make a short paragraph on the body of the article explaining that the 18xx census registered a great variability on the name"? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

how do you come to that conclusion? Why should two extremes of a spectrum -- no variables, paragraph on variables -- be the only options? Reinstating the 5 names (in a manner as before) is also an option, and should suffice. And: What 18xx census are you referring to? There is (AFAIK) no material available that would justify anything more than terse enumeration of the 5 names. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up... round #3 :)

Thanks Eric for cleaning up after me; after reading bad prose for a while one starts writing badly too. I noticed a couple of other things when editing...

I've already tried without luck to resolve the 5 (instead of 6) sons problem (it was already present in the previous text).
Linking to gbooks is ... yucky (I'll send you mail on this). The direct quotations in the article suffice to find it. E.g. search google for "assimilated with them in manners, customs, and character", and the third hit is the book + page.
"and in Charles Allen's analysis" ought to be "de-indiscriminated" to "and in one analysis". (I shouldn't have written it that way in the first place; like I said, reading bad prose addles the brain).
Can you think of a way to fold "Tanolis Today" and "Homelands" into a combined section (with a new name)? IMO, everything present-day should have a higher "priority" than everything else.
The "History" bit still reads like a hagiography, and -- because it doesn't flow -- feels like just another "Notable Tanolis" section in disguise. Can at least the honorifics (the Mirs and Nawabs) be discarded?
The section on "Malik Nawab Khan Tanoli" reads like the author of that was indiscriminately collecting references to Tanoli.
Could you take a crack at completing the citations? i.e. fill in missing Publisher/Location/page #

Thanks again. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

claim of descent from Abbassi

Dhund claim that they descend from Jai Khan, who had 24 sons, from which would descend the Jawal, Dhund, Surara and Tanaoli. The british said that this and other claims are absurd:

[19] [20] [21]

Just leaving it here for later addition to article. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

type of family name

See List_of_Pakistani_family_names, under what category do Tanoli go? I moved it from "pashtun" to "other". --Enric Naval (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

extension of territory

See [22], it describes a territory and its size, but I don't know if it corresponds to the modern state or to the territory held by Jehandad Khan. Can someone put it on the article? --Enric Naval (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The information below also mentions the territory, not size, but the geography to some extent.Wikitanoli (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of information linking to footnotes/ Other Related Information

I had added some information regarding the section on Jehandad Khan, regarding his act for showing mercy upon the sikh troops but someone or some how the footnote linking to the information is no more there.

As mentioned I had got this information from a very competent source, namely a publication, 'A Collection of Papers relating to the HIstory, Status and Powers of The Nawab of Amb', it was document that recorded the Negotiations of the British Government with Jehandad Khan, Chief of Amb, in connection with the murder of Messrs. Carne and Tapp, of the Salt Department, in 1851. Being government document of the British Government, its authenticity is not in doubt. There are many interesting facts mnentioned about the Tanoli State of Amb. I will write below a few lines from letters compiled in the document.

In a letter dated; Hazara, 7th August 1851, from Major. J. Abbott, Deputy Comm and Supdt, Hazara to the Secretary to the Board of Administration for the Affairs of the Punjab. It is stated:

'2. During the first period of Painda Khan's career, he was far too vigorous and powerful to be molested by any neighbouring tribe, and when he began to fail before the armies and purse of the Sikh Govt, He was interested in keeping upon the best terms with his northern neighbours of the Black Mountains with whom he occasionally took refuge, and to whom he allowed the privillege of pasture in the small Tupa of Turrowra.

8. His (Jehandad's) territory interposes bteween Hazara and the strongest and most troublesome of the independent tribes. He can send 50 or 60 matchlocks to retaliate a fray which might cost us an army of 8000 men.

10. Jehandad Khan is naturally of a gentle and sincere temperament, and has fewer vicious propensities than most Asiatics;'

In another letter dated 21st March 1863. From T. D. Forsyth, Officiating Secretary to the Gov, Punjab to Secretary to Governemnt of India, Foreign Department. It is stated:

'3. The present Chief of Amb and Western Tannowli, on the Hazara Border, Muhammad Akram Khan, is a lad of about 13 years of age. His grandfather, Painda Khan, a Chief renowned on the Border, was a wild and energetic man who was never subjugated by the Sikhs. When Hazara fell under British rule, Jehandad Khan, son of Painda Khan, and the father of the present Chief, was found in possession of certain lands on the left bank of the Indus within our boundary, which were continued to him by us, as well as for a certain extent of territory across the river, including the fortress of Amb, which he held in independence. He was the most influential Chief in Hazara,'

In a letter dated; Peshawar, 10th December 1858, from Lt.Col. H. B. Edwards, Commissioner and Supdt, Peshawar Division, to the Financial Commissioner of the Punjab. Its stated:

'4. Undoubtedly the Sikhs did conquer Upper Tannowul. They overran it in their barbarous way; drove the gallant Painda Khan over the Indus and occupied his Cis-Indus country with a bristling array of forts, and those forts were garrisoned by the Sikh troops up to the earlist date for our connection with the Punjab. For, in the height of the Sutlej war, when the news reached Hazara that the Sikh army had been beatin by the English, the Chiefs of Hazara rushed to arms to exterminate the Sikhs who were in their country. They invited Syud Akbur, of Sitana (after wards king of Swat), to come over and be King of Hazara, and make a holy war with them. Nawab Khan of Thingri, became Syad Akbur's "Wazir", Pir Khan came down to join with the Jaduns, Khan i Zeman brought the Tarkheylies; the Swatis of Publi, and the Mushwanis, swelled the tumult. For two months thye besieged Diwan Mulraj, the Kardar, in the fort of Hurkishengarh; and at last, after several gallant repulses, reduced the garrison to evacuate by cutting off the water.

5. The only Chief I believe of real note who stood aloof from this crescentade was the Late Jehandad Khan, as he told it to me: "Syad Akbur was the lord of the pony he rode. Two hundred horsemen rode behind me when I took the air, how could I submit to the Badshahut of a poor Muftie?" But though Jehandad Khan did not join the fanatics he fought for his own hand. He blockaded the garrisons of no less than 22 Sikh posts in Upper Tanawal; and when they surrendered at discretion he spared their lives, more in arrogance than prudence, as the servants of a fallen empire. The act, however, stood him afterwards in good stead; for, when Hazara was assigened to Maharaja Golab Singh, that politic ruler rewarded Jehandad Khan's humanity with the jagir of Koolge and Badnuck in Lower Tannowul.'

In another letter dated Harripur, 28th November 1858, Major J. Becher, Deputy Commissioner, Hazara, to Cmm and Supdt, Peshawar Divsion states:

'5. The term "Jagir" has never appeared to me applicable in any sense to this (Jehandad Khan's) hereditory domain (Upper Tannowul), for it was never granted as such by the Sikhs or by our Government; we upheld the Khan as we found him in his position as a feudal lord and large proprietor.'

In yet another letter, R. Temple, Esq., Secretary to Chief Commisioner, Punjab to The Financial Comm, Punjab. (dated 8th Jan 1859). It is stated:

'2. ....Jehandad's position is, and probably always must be, an anomalous one....the Chief Commissioner considers that Upper Tannowul is a chiefship held under the British Government, but in which, as a rule, we possess no internal jurisdiction. The Chief manages his own people in his own way without regard to our laws, rules or system. This tenure resembles that on which the Chiefs of Patiala, Jhind, Nabha, Kapurthala and others hold their lands.'Wikitanoli (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Could this be "A Collection of Papers Relating To The HISTORY, STATUS AND POWERS Of THE CHIEF OF AMB, 97 Pages, Published 1874, Punjab Secretariat."? [23] --Enric Naval (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. And I have removed the following line from the article: He recovered part of the territories lost by his father thanks to the favors of Gulab Singh of Kashmir and the British government.^[1] The reason for this being that Golab Singh only confered upon Jehandad Khan the jagir of Koolge and Badnuck, which were never parts of his former territory. Jehandad Khan had already got all his former territory from the Sikhs by force and this jagir was granted to him because Jehandad Khan had shown mercy to the army of Sikhs of 22 posts in Upper Tanawal, when they surendered as mention in the above letter dated: Peshawar, 10th December 1858, from Lt.Col. H. B. Edwards, Commissioner and Supdt, Peshawar Division, to the Financial Commissioner of the Punjab.Wikitanoli (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Tags

I think the Article has improved to the level that tags concerning, {{Morefootnotes}} and clean up should be removed; as they caste a shadow of doubt upon a well researched and well cited article.Wikitanoli (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

references are OK, but the section needs more cleanup, maybe a table showing the years of each head of state would help make sense of the list. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Enric is right. There are enough references (~~there is no {{Morefootnotes}} tag btw~~_nm), but the section needs cleanup.

Apropos references: #13, #16 and the commentary half of #15 need to be inline prose. Also, name of publisher/place of publication/year of publication is frequently missing, and in four refs even the name of the author/editor is missing. -- Fullstop (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the references a bit and also added a list of the hereditary rulers of Amb state to the article as taken from a reliable source. It does improve the quality of the article. Thanks for the advice Enric. CheersWikitanoli (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

One thing. A cleanup tag does not cast a shadow over the content on the article, just over its writing style. (the morereferences tag does cast some shadow of sorts, but it's still just a maintenance tag added by editors that see lots of sentences with no refs; it's better to take it as just a request for more sources unless the editor leaves a comment with other reasons).

Off-topic: there must be some cultural thing with arabs writers, because almost all arab wikipedia editors make that confusing prose that mixes everything up, drop lots of names without proper explanation of why they are mentioned, and center more on the families and individual acts than on the battles, conquers and other stuff considered more important by occidentals. It takes a lot of effort to fix some of that prose :P I'm happy that someone that knows the context drops by once in a while and clears the more obscure stuff that I can't find in google books :) --Enric Naval (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right about that Enric. Actually the problem with wikipedia is anyone can change its content, but having said that, this is also its best feature which has led many like me to do research work on topics of interest and add it to the content here. Cheers! Wikitanoli (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ref: It has been suggested that 'Tanolies today' be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

I honestly believe that this Article: Tanolies Today, that has been suggested to be merged into this Article be deleted from Wikipedia let alone merged into this article, along side other such unnotable pages. I can help Wikipedia admins to detect such pages which are of no encyclopaedic value at all and are just covering space here without having any significance. This article already has a Tanolis today section, which contains notable information. Cheers! Wikitanoli (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

incorrect subtribes

Let's make a list here of the incorrect tribes that get added all the time, so we can chack them:

afghan khel incorrect
Suba Khani family name inside labhyal (see comment below)
Sadozai ??
Popalzai ??

Please comment. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Its a good idea to list all incorrect tribe names which are added in the sub tribe section. The source I have mentioed doesnt mention them and even from my knowledge these tribes are not from amongst the Tanolis. You have also mentioned Suba Khani in this list, which is a family name from a Tanoli sub tribe Labhyal and that is already mentioned in the list. Likewise Haibat Khani (the ruling family of Amb) are a family name from amongst the sub tribe Jamal. The tribe name Khankhel although not mentioned in my source is a Tanoli family name of some sub tribe that I am not aware of, but they also reside in the Tanawal tract and accepted by other Tanolis as their brothers, so I let that name remain in the list.Wikitanoli (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll just add more when they appear. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hassanzai, no sources

Its article says that it's a Pashtun tribe, mentions nothing about Tanoli. Searching "Hassanzai" in google books and google scholar gives some results[24][25], so the tribe exists and has a history. Searching "Hassanzai tanoli" (without quotes) gives zero results [26][27]. I have removed it until someone provides a source. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hassanzais, Bassikhel, Akazais, Madakhels, Nusrat Khels and a few other tribes are of Pashtun origin residing in Kala Dhaka region and they were nominally under the control of Tanawali rulers of Amb State. They are not Tanolis by tribe.Wikitanoli (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

And now someone has removed Sudral and added Badral. I have looked at the source for that section, can someone point out the exact page that has the subtribes? --Enric Naval (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for the confussion, I had actually come across quite a few sources on Tanolies on the web and had copy pasted the information from different sites on to one word document. I must have forgotten to write down the name of this particular document which contained information regarding these sub tribes of Tanolis. But I have checked from my word document and the following are the names of the sub tribes that were originally mentioned in that document:

"Tanoli Sub Tribes: The Hindwal section occupy feudal or upper Tanawal and extend to the right bank of the Indus, the Pallal lower Tanawal, including Badhnak and a num- ber of villages in the Girhian tract of the Mansehra Tehsil. The further sub – divisions of the tribe are:

Jamal Ledhyal. Bohal. Saryal Hedral BhujaL Abdwal. Jalwal. Baigal. Tekral. Pansial. Labhyal (Suba Khani) Matyal. Bainkaryal. Dairal. Sadhal. Judhal."

Being a Tanoli myself, I know these are sub tribes of the Tanolis but there are further smaller families which might have been over looked by the author of this document (I am still searching for the name of this doc.), therefore we cannot hold family names other than these as invalid. Usually tanoli sub tribe names end at 'Al' but that does not mean all tribes of that nature in the area are Tanolis. The larger sub tribes are Jamal, Bhujal, Bohal, Baigal and Saryal and these make up most of the population of around 600 villages of the Tanolis in Upper Tanawal. I dont know much about the rest but I will do some research on these and update it here soon.Wikitanoli (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I just found the book online, the details of the book are: Punjabi Musalmans ([19--])

Author: Wikeley, J. M Subject: Muslims -- India; Punjab -- History Publisher: Lahore Book House Possible copyright status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT Language: English Call number: ABU-5769 Digitizing sponsor: MSN Book contributor: Robarts - University of Toronto Collection: toronto

Although this book is about Punjab Musalman tribes, the sixth chapter in brief mention Cis-Indus Pathan tribes and tribes of the Hazara Division including the Tanolis from page 159 to 161. Thankyou Enric for pointing out the mistake in the article. Wikitanoli (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

ok. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Can this talk page be unprotected now so that unregistered users can make comments? We can quickly restore protection if necessary. --TS 19:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. I didn't realize that it was permanently semi'ed... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethnically Pashtun

The Tanoli are a Hindko and Pashto speaking tribe, and mainly dwell in the Hazara region of the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan. Although Tanoli are a Hindko speaking people, they are ethnically Pashtun and originate from the Afghan Pathan tribe that migrated from Afghanistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.28.89 (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tanoli Community

I belong to the tribe Tanoli of Pathan community, we're tired of seeing on wikipedia Tanoli are unknown tribe, my family belongs to basically Torbela but in 1974 we have migrated in Europe, here Tanoli tribe counts are Pashtun, and my family main language is Pashto, my grandfather from was Maini, personal war, we came in Torbela, and then from Torbela we have migrated into Europe, as principal language is Pashto about us followed and talked .. and the rest of my family are still in Maini. I do not think about us having to do with these people who do not speak Pashto, or with politicals books, and I say to everyone, but at least I can not say anything directly about a tribe, I know here in europe people From Khalabat since it also belongs to Torbela, but they have them speak Hindko Pashtun, and also know people of afghanistan also belongs to the same tribe of Tanoli also speak Pashto and Persian and they are Pashtun, —Preceding unsigned comment added by TanoliCommunity (talk • contribs) 21:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

i also belong to tanoli tribe i have researched by myself and i found some points maybe iam wrong but i want to share the main question is either tanoli are pathan or mughal we have listen that tanoli came from afghanistan and they lived near river tanawal or tarnal or something like this, i have found that there is no river in afghanistan like the same name or resembled to same name, afghanistan is landlock country and there is a few near about 15 river in afghanistan, one name of river is tarnak this is little bit resembled but there is difference between tarnak and tarnal or tanawal, if we put L in tarnak instead of K then it is resmembled according to tanawal historian saying there is one river which is in kazakistan name tanobal or tobol river exists, and it is matched to tanawal or ternal or samething like this and it is support mughal barlas origen one common thins is also talked that tanoli are also living in afghanistan, i want to clear that they have differnt name not tanoli, the name of that tribe is taniwal which is sub branch of Tani tribe they are living in Khost province one of my email response is mentioned below RE: salamz‏

From: khushal taniwal (ktaniwal@hotmail.com) Sent: Sat 4/18/09 2:25 AM To: atta708@hotmail.com

Hey Dear,

Hope that you are good. Well good to know that there is someone there who wants to know about their forefathers. Taniwal is a big tribe. The actual name of the tribe is tani tribe. We are in khost province. One of the Famous person is My late Father Hakim taniwal. I think we are from Karlani tribe and in subdivision it is Tani and some others. I am not sure about that. There is a Pushto Tree Book which tells you about all the tribes and Sub tribes. If you can find that which will be good source. When i go to Afghanistan i will find the book. Let me find out around here i might be able to find it somewhere around. If i can then i will let you know Where the actual tree starts. Till then all the best.

khushal taniwal

another email is below

From: khushal taniwal (ktaniwal@hotmail.com) Sent: Mon 4/20/09 10:04 PM To: atta708@hotmail.com

Hey man, The tani tribe is in khost and i dont know about another tribe that has a similar tribe like us. I have been to Gardez many times and i have not heard of the tanoli tribe there. There is a tribe called totakhel but i dont think that sort of matches what you are looking for. I am looking for that book. If you are in Pakistan then you will be able to find the book about Pushtun Tribes and how they break up and what tribes are alike and come from the same tree. I am in Australia now. Will talk. Take care khushal

Infact there is still doubt about exact origen of tanolis and it is still to be found either in afghanistan or in kazakistan sorry for poor language Atta ur rehman atta708@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.93.101.129 (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hasrat khan tanoli

look at the deference between a tanoli race,

( Hindko Tanawal ),( Pashto Taniwal ), ( Urdu Tanoli ),

see the Difference.

Tanawal by change from the Taniwal and Tanoli by change from the Tanawal ,

Taniwal originating in Afghanistan, Tanawal the origin of the term tribe is due to corruption after the name of Taniwal, is the same tribe, by the custom of Hazara changed the names for the seat of Hindko language, and then later given which combined Tanoli with the concurrence of Urdu spoken Tanoli, most people here confused by the language and do not know who the are,Tanoli is very rich culture and establishment of traditions. Hujra and Jirga still exists in the Hazara. they are pashtun that migrated from Afghanistan.After their migration to Hazara result still follows pashtunwali tradition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasratkhantanoli (talk • contribs) 14:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Tanole

Tanoli are a pashtun tribe also called Taniwal Tanole in afghanistan who mixed with Persian of amb. they are pashto speakers also live in laghman

Ahmad khan Tanole laghman

Ok, but why have you blanked the Tanoli sub tribes section? Have A discussion on it here in the Talk page of a wikipedia article before removing content from the article. I have undone your changes, 'section blanking' of the Tanoli sub tribes. Cheers!Wikitanoli (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Tanoli is a Pashtun tribe name

can you give me reason that why you deleted my comment? it was close to reality ,it was about that what we are, —Preceding unsigned comment added by TanoliCommunity (talk • contribs) 14:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is in reference to this text, I suppose. See:

You copy/pasted the whole content of the article Swat_Syed_Abdul_Jabbar_Shah into a talk page, for no apparent reason
You said "The origin of the term tanoli is due to later corruption of the name Tanawali" but you didn't cite any reliable source for the statement
You said "Therefore, to assign any other origin of the name Tanoli is not only against the cultural norms and tribal history of the area but also a distortion of History." but you didn't cite any reliable source for the statement. Other editors can only guess that this is your personal opinion. Your own personal opinions are not valid as sources for the articles. You need to cite the opinion of an expert in the field.
You linked to http://yawiki.org/proc/Tanoli. This page has a text that has been spammed repeatedly by blocked user User:Pakhtun Tanoli.

--Enric Naval (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Tanolian

i belong to banukhel is subtribe of the tanolian,what is not in list, I do not know how to put here,and another is from Paktia paindakhel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.173.204 (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the list given by Wikeley of Tanoli sub tribes is not conclusive and I feel there are some errors in it aswell. I will correct and update this list after some research. Wikely has just written about Tanoli subtribes living in Hazara alone; so obviously Tanoli subtribes residing in other regions, such as Swabi District etc, are not in this list. So if you belong from a Tanoli subtribe and see your subtribe name not on the list, you can add it here so we can add it to the article. Cheers.Wikitanoli (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Tanoli Sub Tribes

== Nawab khalli == is one of the important tribe of Tanoli Rais e Azam Nawab Khan was the ancestor of this tribe (Nawabkhalli (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)) aoa to all

i am a tanoli and very interested in the history of my tribe. i tried to mail to the person who offers to give the scanned pages of "tareekh-e-tanolian" but my mail bounced back due to invalid email address or some reason i dont know. I request to tanolis or whoever has got any literature about our tribe, please send me the data or identify me the book shops from where i can buy these books. my email address is "farhanullahk@gmail.com"

your cooperation in this regard would be highly appreciated. regards farhan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.207.76 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 7 January 2008

International The Jang News

International The Jang News http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=197824

I think that the opening line 'Although not usually acknowledges a Pashtuns...' is putting a slant on this article too early when there are credible references for their Pashtun and Barlas Mughal origins. Therefore, a re-edit is needed to reflect this. Perhaps a more balanced approach is needed given that celebrated Pashtuns of Afghan origin also give their tribal affiliation as Tanoli e.g. Firoz Khan and Shah Rukh Khan.Tariq Khan Hassanzai 11:29 AM 24th December 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tariq Khan Hassanzai (talk • contribs) 11:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the same quote goes on to include Dilazaks, Jaduns, Mashwanis and Shilmans in this category of tribes (assimilated into Pashtun tribal system) in the same sentence. We know that these same tribes are widely acknowledges as Pashtuns therby making the quote unreliable at the least. See page 216 of the 1914 edition of the Ibbetson et al's book volume 3 book on the Tribes and Castes of Punjab and North Wesat Frontier Province. • contribs) 03:301 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Barlas Origin

I can't understand why this page cites theories with no proof. There is proof from documents that the Tanoli race is descended from the Barlas Mughals, then why is this not mentioned anywhere?

Who is this Paktun pushing alleged Tanwali who hides this information? I order you to come forward and admit your wrong doing. If you are arguing, then why are you not arguing full facts? Why are you turning us into something else? I have both books that have this proof of who we are? We do not live in Afghanistan, we live in Pakistan so out of cuckoo land.

User Raja, we are not Punjabi and although you do not say we are, we dont like to be linked there either, as there is much bad blood between us and the sikh killers who devastated our people, and we resisted and defeated. Please refrain from editing our page.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dil tarasha (talk • contribs) 14:33, 20 March 2007

JUST DO ONE THING, VISIT THE TANAWAL REGION AND ASK THE PEOPLE WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE MUGHAL BARLAS OR RAJA JANJUAS. I AM 100% SURE THAT THEY WILL NULLIFY BOTH THESE THEORIES, RATHER THEY WILL SAY THAT THEY HAVE NOT EVEN HEARD THESE TERMS BEFORE. (NOTE: there may be some Raja Janjuas or Mughal Barlas living in the Tanawal Region, but they are not the TANOLIS. They may occasionally call themselves Tanolis just because they live in TANAWAL REGION, which is against the original customs and traditions of THE TANOLIS. The real TANOLIS are only those who were TANOLIS even before conquering and naming this region as TANAWAL, I mean when they were in SWAT. These real Tanolis will totally disagree to Janjua and Barlas theories.) They will always say that their forefathers migrated from Afghanistan to SWAT and then moved accrosed that region to TANAWAL and the mother tongue of their forefathers was Pushto. However they will not say with surity that their forefathers were Pathans aswell, but still they were Afghans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.215.172.33 (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Authentication

Tanolis are basically Pathans belong to Hazrat Khaild Bin Waleed (R.A). They are from Afghanistan and migrated to Hazara later on. They are not at all mughals aur Birlas . The Tanolis (or Tanawalis) are a prominent and famous Muslim Pashtun tribe residing mainly in Amb, Hazara Division of the North-West Frontier Province Pakistan. The Tanolis are the richest tribe of Hazara in terms of land ownership. They are the largest in population. Upper Tanawal and Lower Tanawal which cover the greater part of Hazara have been ruled by Tanolis for centuries. They have ruled the state of Amb of Hazara since the beginning of 18th century. During the late 17th century, Turks were overthrown by Swatis in areas of Upper Hazara. Tanolis, however, remained loyal to the Turks until the end of latter's rule in Hazara. Tanolis were later involved in the rebellions against the Sikhs in the 19th century. They also allied with Ahmed Shah Abdali in his conquest of India. Many Khans and princes of their dynasty have gained mass popularity as heroes. Charles Allen referred to them in his book Men who made the North-West Frontier as "the extremely hostile and powerful Tanolis of the Tanawal Mountains, brave and hardy and accounted for the best swordsmen in Hazara." They were also the last ruling dynasty of the Princely State of Amb.

Origins and History

Pashtun Origin The most prominent theory is that the people who came to be known as "Tanolis" are identified as such due to their link with a particular geographical setting in which they found themselves (i.e. Tanawal State).

Contemporary Tanolis are collection of smaller groups which consists of those who call themselves Tanolis because they have resided in an area called Tanawal and those who are sub-groups, septs or clans of different Pashtun tribes representing major Afghan khels (sub tribes) in the State of Tanawal.

Many other Tanoli clans have argued the theories of their origins. For example the Hassanals have always maintained that they are actually Hassanzais from the Kala Dhaka or Black Mountains - Tur ghar and adopted the nomenclature of the Tanoli area when they left their own areas, due to tribal feuds with other clans located there. The fact that there was also a non-Hassanzai group with that name did not matter as there are many sub-tribal names which are identical but with different tribal affiliations. This also seems quite plausible given the fact that Tanolis in ;; Agror Valley, Mansehra[[and the surroundings speak Pashto as their first language if not exclusively. This is documented in the first Hazara Gazetteer written soon after the settlement of Hazara by Captain James Abbott. This book also mentions the fact that the original language of the Tanolis was Pashto but some have forgotten it and now speak Hindko in areas where the majority speaks this language.

Tanoli clan names do not all follow the Pashtun style, such as end with khel or zai. Considering the case of Afridis, Mohmands, Waziris as prominent Pashtun tribes, who also don't follow this practice the case of Tanoli tribe is not unusual.

It would seem that there are among the Tanolis a great majority who have some Pashtun practices but there are also those who call themselves Tanolis because the area is more important for their identity - Swatis are another tribe named after their abode prior to their settlement in Hazara. Erroneous assertions have been made in the past in relation to other Pashtun tribes when dubious links were made between Rajput and Pashtun tribal names by Sir Alexander Cunningham, author of the History of the Sikhs, when he noticed some similarity between Rajput clan/caste names and Pashtun tribal appendages. (See Swatis.)

There complete name are written in the way i.e. Khanzada Osama Khan Tanoli, and most of the research shows that they are pathans/pushtuns.

It must also be noted that Dr Sher Bahadur Khan comments that the Tanawalis consist of various Afghan tribes though majority are from different branches of Yusufzais including the Hassanzais of Tur Ghar (Black Mountains).

There are many occassions when Nawabzada Salahudeen Saeed Khan has confirmed that the Tanolis are predominantly Pashtun. Therefore, it can be assumed that although there are some minorities, in the Tanaval range, who may be of other races such as Abbasids, Sayads, Awans and Gujjars, the major sept are of Afghan origin(Tanoli) as has been quoted throughout the literature even though the Turks in Hazara are originally from areas in Afghanistan.

Wars and Famous Personalities The Yousafzai tribe came to Swat in approximately 1450AD and began fighting with settled Pakhtun tribes inhabiting Swat namely the Tanolis, Swatis and Dilazak. At that time Tanolis were among the leading tribes in Swat. Sawat history also tells us that Tanolis were the only threat for Yousafzais. Every time Tanolis fought bravely against Yousafzais but at last they were left alone by the other tribes of Swat. After several battles between the Tanolis and the Yousafzais, the Tanoli Chief Sultan Ameer Khan Tanoli was finally martyred while fighting with Yousafzais at Topi (near Swabi).

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

Mir Sar-Buland Khan During the Governorship of the Sikh general Hari Singh Nalwa, Mir Sar-Buland Khan Tanoli, was very rebellious towards him. He allied with Mir Painda Khan and Muhammad Khan Tareen as well as chiefs of the Pakhtun Jadun tribes against them. Whilst engaged in one battle, Hari Singh Nalwa shot dead his son Sher Muhammad Khan. He continued his rebellion regardless and unrelented in his repeat incursions against them, though without success against the militarily superior opposition. At one point, he and Mir Painda Khan besieged and conquered Darband fort from the Sikh chief Sardar Gordat Singh.

Mir Painda Khan Mir Painda Khan is famed for his staunch rebellion against Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Governors of Hazara. He was the son of Mir Nawab Khan, who defeated the Durranis and freed his kingdom from their influence. From about 1813, he spent a life long rebellion against the Sikhs, who, realising the potential of his rebellion, set up forts at strategic locations to keep him in check. Hari Singh Nalwa took this initiative during his governorship. Painda Khan's relentless rebellion against the Sikh empire, cost him a major portion of his Kingdom, leaving only his twin capitals Amb and Darband. However, this deterred him less and appeared to increase his resistance against the Sikh government. The District Gazetteer of the North-West Frontier Province (p138) confirms, "Painda Khan, played a considerable part in the history of his time and vigorously opposed the Sikhs." Mir Painda Khan set the tone foertainly puts the Tanolis in Mahaban before they were evicted from there by Yusufzais and also cites their orginal language as Pashtu. They then came across the Indus and made their home there in time becoming dominant over local population of Gujjars, Awans etc. Although it cannot be discounted that Turkic origin Tanolis do exist as those Turks who were expelled from Agror and Pakhli made their way to the mountain ranges of Tanaval and mixed in with others already settled there. It is cited but without proof that Nawabzada Salahudeen Saeed Khan has the confirmation of this descent as Barlas. This is contrary to the many occassions when he has confirmed that the Tanolis are predominantly Pashtun. Therefore, it can be assumed that although there are some minorities, in the Tanaval range, who may be of other races such as Abbasids, Sayads, Awans and Gujjars, the major sept are of Afghan origin as has been quoted throughout the literature even though the Turks in Hazara are origiherefore, it can be assumed that although there are some minorities, in the Tanaval range, who may be of other races such as Abbasids, Sayads, Awans and Gujjars, the major sept are of Afghan origin as has been quoted throughout the literature even though the Turks in Hazara are origi "Of all the tribal chiefs of Hazara, the most powerful said to be Jehandad Khan of the Tanoli, whose land straddled both banks of the Indus and whose fellow-tribesmen were 'brave and hardy and accounted for the best swordsmen in Hazara'. There was a long history of conflict between Jehandad Khan's family and the Sikhs, and the name of his father Painda Khan, was said to be 'magic to the ears of the people of Hazara' because of the struggles he fought on behalf of his 'poor circumscribed and rugged principality' against the Sikhs. Abbot was aware that before his death Painda Khan had made his son (Jehandad Khan) swear never to trust his safety to any ruler."

This was a strong testament to the physical, political power and heroic background of the House of Tanoli which continued throughout the history of the tribes ancestry.

Mir Jehandad Khan is further mentioned in the same source as, "Jehandad Khan - a good looking young man of 26 years, tall and slender, with remarkably large and fine eyes - rode into Abbott's encampment surrounded by an escort of horsemen clad in shirts of mail and steel skull caps, handsomely mounted and equipped, who made a most picturesque display....the bystanders, who regarded the Chief with great awe, were thunderstruck.." In 1852, Jehandad Khan was summonsed by the President of the Board of Administration (who travelled to Hazara to see the Khan) in relation to a murder enquiry of two British civilians in his lands. It is mentioned in the above source (p203,p204) that "Jehan Dad Khan, the head of the Clan, and his minister Boostan Khan...knowing himself charged for his life, with the air of a prince sat down....answered all questions in an easy off hand way that looked very much like innocence. I was glad when the examination was over and the men let go, for they had a following of five or six hundred men, all stalwart fellows who had accompanied their Chief..." The President ended the talk by threatening him that, "If you refuse to give up the murderers...I will come with an army to burn your villages and give your country to another." It is said that the Khan replied, folding hands and with some fun replied with his elders, "We should consider your presence (in our kingdom) an honor, but our country is a 'rather difficult one' for your army." This famed statement was the talk of the day and remembered by many locals of Hazara even to this day as a heroic answer to a staunch threat from a powerful official. His son, Nawab Bahadur Sir Muhammed Akram Khan was conferred the title Nawab Bahadur by the British Raj.

Nawab Sir Muhammad Akram Khan The next chief of the Tanolis and son of Mir Jahandad Khan was Nawab Sir Akram Khan (1868 - 1907). He was a popular chief and it was during his tenure that the fort at Shergarh was constructed, along with Dogah and Thakot. His rule was a peaceful time for Tanawal with no major conflicts.

Nawab Khanizaman khan Nawab Khanizaman Khan succeeded his father in taking over the reins of power in Tanawal in Amb. He helped the British in carrying out the Black Mountain (Kala Dhaka/Tur Ghar)expeditions.

Malik Nawab Khan Tanoli Malik Nawab Khan was a great personality of Lower Tanawal. He had his own small state Jarna in Abbottabad. Major Abbot mentioned him as a "Brave man" in his book written on Abbottabad. Malik Nawab Khan was a learned man and an able soldier. He was a strong religious man. He was the last chief of Tanoli Jirga. Malik Nawab Khan was among the fellow tribesmen of famous Mir Jehandad Khan.

Tanolis Today The majority of Tanolis reside in the former state of Amb in the Hazara division of the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan. A branch of the Tanoli tribe also resides in Kashmir mainly in Muzaffarabad. The famous ancestral forefather of this Kashmiri branch was Amir Mir-ullah. Tanolis have a big area of territory called Upper Tanawal and Lower Tanawal. Upper Tanawal is considered as backward area and has its quota in Govt of Pakistan. Tanolis have their majority throughout Hazara Division Abbottabad, Haripur, Mansehra, Battagram, Kohistan. Tanolis are also living in some areas of Swabi, Nowshera, Rawalpindi, Gujar Khan and Sultanpur. A large number of Tanolis are also living in Karachi. Their main language is Hindko. Tanolis living in Pashtun dominated areas speak Pushtu and those living in Punjab speak Punjabi and others living in others countries speak dominant language of those states e.g. English as this is a natural phenomenon. Some Tanolis migrated to UK after the 2nd World War to help rebuild the war ravaged country.

Tanolis are rich in culture values and strongly follow the customs of their Pakhtun ancestorsGazetteer of Hazara District 1883-4.

Famous Tanolis of Today Some famous personalities of the Pakhtun Tanoli tribe in this modern era are: Ayub Khan Tanoli He was a lawyer and well-known politician. He remained as Minister of Law and Education NWFP. He belonged to Sherwan in Abbottabad. Jamshed Khan Tanoli Jamshed Khan Tanoli from Jarral served as Secretary of Education NWFP. During his service he was famous for his honesty throughout the province. Nawabzadah Salahuddin Saeed Tanoli He is grandson of Nawab Farid Khan, the last Nawab of Tanawal, and son of Muhammad Saeed Khan who passed away in 1974. The Nawabzadah has been elected to the National Assembly as an MNA for Mansehra NA15 from 1985 to 1999. He held important posts in the Federal Government as a cabinet minister and chairman of standing committees and travelled abroad as a representative of Pakistan, including the General Assembly of the United Nations.

References Gazetteer of the Hazara District, 1883-4 (p38). Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province H.A Rose, p255 & p256 Chiefs and Families of Note in Punjab by Lepel H.Griffin (1910, ii, p254) Gazetteer of the North-Western Frontier Province p138. Gazeteer of Hazara District (1883/4). (p.61) History of the Sikhs by J.D. Cunnigham, (1849). Panjab Castes by Denzil Ibbetson, Delhi, p93. The Jaduns by Sultan Khan Jadun (2001). Tarikh-ul-Afghan ka Tehqiqi Jahiza by Sultan Khan Jadun (1979). Tairikh-e-Hazara by Dr Sher Bahadur Khan Panni. Journal of Central Asia Vol XII, (July 1990), Prof. Ahmed Hasan Dani, July, 1990 p79. Soldier Sahibs: The Men who made the North-Western Frontier by Charles Allen, Abacus 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.34.83 (talk) 10:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)