Talk:Hindkowans

ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{ Ethnic groups }} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Pakistan Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	India Low‑importance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

shouldn't this page be called Hindko people or moved back to Hindkowans? It's Wikipedia policy to use the most common term for something—here are some Goolge numbers:

• Results 1 - 10 of about 0 for "Hindkowan people"
• Results 1 - 10 of about 99 for "Hindko people"
• Results 1 - 10 of about 177 for "Hindkowan"
• Results 1 - 10 of about 203 for "Hindkowans"

Khoikhoi 04:33, 13 January 2007 (utc)

This is a very specific group that is different from western Punjabis who were sometimes Hindu and Sikh. Specifically, the Hindkowans link themselves to the Pashtuns culturally (often practicing Pashtunwali), whereas others don't. Cultural and linguistic specifity requires clarification as Hindu Pathan is a misnomer as it is most likely a geographic term like Afghan Hindu or Afghan Sikh and is not an ethno-lingusitic appellation. The articles I've read simply note that the Hindkowans are Muslim so we can't wish them to be linked to the Hindus of the western Punjabi variant. Until we have a specific reference to Hindko speakers including a minority of non-Muslims, they are basically identical CULTURALLY to the Pashtuns, but linguistically divergent. I don't doubt that some Hindus and others spoke Pashto or Hindko as 2nd languages given their geographic locale, but as their mother tongue and identification within the Hindkowan community? That requires certain evidence. Tombseye 23:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here is a perfect example of why some might confuse the Hindkowans with other groups: Ethnologue West Lahnda]. Note that the groups Mirpuri Punjabi and Sereiki etc. which include Hindus and Christians, while Hindko does not. This group that lives in close proximity to the Pashtuns is Muslim, whereas the other religious communities appear to have comprises linguistically related groups who spanned the area. Tombseye 00:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tombseye. Thanks for your comments. If you would have read the reference (which comes right from Pakistan) carefully, you would have noted that it mentions that Kapoor's mother tongue was Hindko:

“

Yaqoob said the Kapoor’s love for Peshawar and Hindko language could be seen from the fact that Shami Kapoor and Dilip Kumar, another Peshawar resident, co-starred in a film and spoke Hindko in a Hindi film.

”

When India was partitioned, many Hindu Pathans left their homes and moved to the Republic of India. This is similar to the situation of other ethnic groups such as the Sindhis. From the same reference:

“

"That time was of great love and there was no religious hatred between the Hindus and Muslims and there were no restrictions on children of different religions to enter the houses of each other,” he said. Mr Wahid said people of the area were saddened when the Kapoor family and other Hindus left Peshawar after partition.

”

Prior to that time period in India, the farther north you went, the greater the concentration of Muslims; the father south you went, the greater the concentration of Hindus. However, there were still people of the other religion on both sides. See the map to the right which illustrates this phenomenon. Along with this concept, the other reference points out the there were both Hindu and Muslim Pashtuns who came from Afghanistan to Peshawar:

“

Peshawar city, in the northern Frontier Province of India, was a cantonment area which housed the British army. It abounded with a happy mixture of Hindu and Muslim Pathans who had migrated from Kabul, Capitol of the neighborly State of Afghanistan.

”

In other words, they were not North Indians just living in the area, they were authentic Pathans and Punjabi Pathans (Hindkowans). Until we have a reference that says the term Hindu Pathan is a misonomer, the current references will do per

]

Hmm, I'm still not sure whether they constitute Hindkowans as I now realize the group in question. You see, in India, the misapplied term "Pathan" is incorrectly used towards people from a particular geographic region rather than regarding Pashtuns. There are no Hindu Pashtuns as that group has a pagan past (like their immediate neighbors) and being a Pashtun and a Muslim has long since been established (like the Armenian idenification with Christianity that excludes Islamic adherence), whereas the Hindkowans were probably Buddhist and Hindu prior to their conversion to Islam and assimilation and influence by the Pashtuns. The western dialects of Punjabis merge into Hindko to the point that it becomes indecipherable as well. In addition, the Hindkowans are specific group that identifies with Pashtunwali, something the Hindus of Peshawar would not as it is synonymous with Islam. There are, for example, Hindus in Afghanistan who are generally labelled "Jats" who also speak Pashto and Dari. Similarly, this group in Peshawar would no doubt know Hindko and Pashto, but not as mother tongues, but rather the languages of the region they live in. I have a strong suspicion that this group is specifically NOT Hindkowan but rather Western Punjabi because they don't adhere to the Pashtunwali way of life and thus would never be regarded as "Pathans" by either the Pashtuns or Hindkowans (who are transitional themselves). The other groups like Sereikis and Mirpuris are the group that the Kapoors most likely derive from as they are found in urban areas, once as far west as Peshawar and possibly in Afghanistan at one point. I believe this all goes into the Indian miscomprehension of Pathans as a group that is geographic rather than linguistic/cultural that creates the confusion. In fact, the term Hindu Pathan is a misnomer as it is a term that would only be used by Indians and never by the Pashtuns or Muslim Hindkowans themselves given their exclusive nature. Further evidence of this confusion stems from the Indian usage of Pathan as a reference to all Afghans, a huge lapse that shows a disconnect due to geographic distance and a lack of regular communication and linkages to the Afghan experience and social landscape. I won't argue the point further as I can't research this further at this time given my other commitments, BUT a major caveat must be that if there is a Hindu minority it is most likely a very tiny one. Also, the references are to the Kapoor family's love of Hindko, but not their identification with it as a mother tongue and nor to any sizeable Hindu minority amongst the Hindkowans. Tombseye 04:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, though I would have to disagree with some of them. If Kapoor was a Punjabi, then he would be referred as such, especially in a pre-partition India with a wide array of ethnic groups. Had he not been a Punjabi Pathan, he would have spoken Punjabi, not Hindko. Similarly, Punjabis residing in

Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and other Indian Pathans used the term themselves. The reference actually does use the term Hindu and Muslim Pathans. Regardless, it is a topic that needs more research. By the way, I have found two sources that indicate a Christian minority among the Punjabi Pathan that I will add shortly. Thanks again for discussing the issue. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It's circumstantial as they claim to have a great love of Hindko, but regardless the Kapoors could the exception to the rule and I highly doubt Hindu Hindkowans are more than few hundred if even that many, given the many surveys done of the Hindkowans that show that they are largely a fusion Punjabi and Pashtun elements that are part of a transitional group that fades from the Northwest Punjabi towards the Iranic Pashtuns. As for the reference of Pathan, it's an Indian usage as Pakhtunkhwa was actually synonymous with Afghanistan NOT India. The Indian perception of what is Indian tends to wrongly reflect British India and not what was there before the British came, i.e. Afghanistan and Iran in western Pakistan. Also, the usage of Pathan arose during the Islamic period and is a Hindi-Urdu variant and has no ancient precedent. This can be confirmed from the references at Pashtuns as I've spent years studying this group. Pakhtunwali IS how Pashtuns define themselves. In fact, the Pashtuns were not Buddhist or Hindu or Zoroastrian (and if they were it, they were tiny groups) but rather Pagan as their neighbors were pagan until recently AND Pashtunwali is a clear legacy of their pagan past. Ghaffar Khan was speaking to a certain audience and he was not an expert on the Pashtuns (being part of an ethnic group doesn't make one an expert), but rather a politician and activist and an admirable one given his adoption of Gandhi's non-violent ways (unusual for many Pashtuns of that time) and nor is he an indicator of all Pashtuns at any rate. I suppose there might be a small Christian minority as well, but I believe the blurring lines between Punjabi and Hindko make this all confusing as the Hindkowans are, from my own experience and interaction, practioners of Pashtunwali and do not regard non-Muslims as Hindkowan Pathans (or simply Pathans as they use the term). Thus, these other groups would be considered western Punjabis and NOT Pathans, either by the Pashtuns or Hindkowans. Tombseye 14:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Kapoor family was truly Punjabi, then the Indian media would have referred to him as such as almost all Indians are familiar with the Punjabi culture. However, all the sources I have gathered use the term Pathan, which refers to the inhabitants of Pakhtunkhwa, the Hindkowans and Pashtuns. No references mention that he spoke Punjabi nor that he was one. However, the references that I have provided do say that he spoke Hindko and was from Peshawar, which has a large concentration of Hindkowans. In addition, most Pashtuns (practitioners of Pashtunwali), do not regard Hindkowans as Pashtuns, but as a separate ethnic group of Indic origin. If Hindkowans did not regard Hindus as part of their ethnic group, then they would have not made a statement like this:

“

...people of the area were saddened when the Kapoor family and other Hindus left Peshawar after partition.

”

Indian media is ignorant, what else should I say. Kapoors were not pure Peshawarites, they had moved from a small village of Punjab to Peshawar and at some point they must have given up Punjabi and started speaking Hindko. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kohestani9 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, ethnicity is determined by genetics, not by the opinions of others. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 22:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but opinions are not what we go by. Reference books make it clear that Pashtuns, specifically are only Muslim. The Hindkowans may be another matter as they are NOT Pashtuns, but a transitional group, Punjabi Pathans, who are overlap with some being closer to the Pashtuns and others closer to the Punjabis. As for genetic variability, that is one part of the picture, but not the entire one. The Indian media, like most Indians views things from their own perspective and not academic ones. Thus, India for them extends much further outward simply due to nationalism rather than historical evidence. Hinduism is often focal point even though the Pashtuns were not Hindus, although some Hindkowans may have been, but rather pagan as the Pashtuns were rural and lived next to their pagan neighbors. There is no linguistic or religious link thusly and they are an Iranian people. In addition, it is possible that some Hindkowans view things differently, but they are NOT Pashtuns and thus Hindus are not Pashtuns. This is not my view, but that of academia. India ends at the Attock bridge where Afghanistan begins in this regard. The Hindkowans and other small groups of partial Indo-Aryan LINGUISTIC origin are found as far north as Central Asia and it is conceivable that some may be regarded as of a local ethnicity, but I don't know. this is original research regardless. Hindus who left Peshawar are not necessarily Pashtuns just because they lived there. Rather, they might be regarded as Hindkowans, if they are indeed Hindko speakers. Regardless, this group is so small as to be virtually inconsequential to the article other than receiving its small mention. It's like referring to the small group of Hari Krishnas in the US as if they are in some way an important segment of the population when their neighbors make it clear that this is not the case. Tombseye 19:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{

]

Shah Rukh Khan

I've removed him from the notable people section. Here are some pretty good reasons why:

1. The article on Shah Rukh Khan refers to him as being Pashto. 2. They use the same citations for this that this page used to prove him Hindkowan. 3. But those pages mention him being Pashto, they do not mention him being Hindkowan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalmatianfan52 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed his son Aryan Khan, as well as Dilip Kumar. Sharukh Khan and Dilip Kumar were both born in Peshawar and that city is about 99.9% ethnic Pashtuns. According to the sources, they all mention the word "Pathan", which is a name used for Pashtuns in Pakistan and India. Peshawar is not a Hindkowan city for us to assume that these people are Hindkowans. The Hindkowans live in Abbottabad and nearby places. Their territory is located between Pashtuns, Punjabis and Kashmiris. There is a Hindkowan editor here trying to make Dilip Kumar, Shah Rukh Khan and his son Aryan Khan as being Hindkowans. We need to see sources that say they are "Hindkowans" but for now they are not. So... we have to assume these celebrities are ethnic Pashtuns because Peshawar is Pashtun city.--119.30.66.179 (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, You are either an afghan muhajir or a fata muhajir as you dont even know Peshawar. Peshawar is a 100% Hindkowan city. It is now that people have migrated from Afghanistan and the rural areas due to urbanisation. You could be one of those migrants who have migrated in recent years in search of a job. Kindly update your information and please dont be racist as you are blindly describing pakhtuns as peshawaris. You can always change people's views who are away from the reality but you can not change the ground reality. Thanks Nisar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.206.168 (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the name of this article should be changed to Hindko language or just hindko. As i have seen no one calling themselves hindkowan, specially in Hazara, which has majority hindko speaking people. The article righfully mentions that the people in Hazara division do not associate themselves with the language but with their tribe names, unlike pushtun people, who refer to each other as pushtuns and not by their different tribe names. People of Hazara division when talk of each other belonging from Hazara divdision, call each other Hazarawal. Maybe hindkowan is a term used in pushtu, if this is the case, it must be mentioned in the article.Wikitanoli (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article also states Hinkowans or Punjabi Pathans, this is another mis conception. The pathans are a pushtu speaking people of the NWFP and parts of Afghnistan, a Punjabi is anyone from the region of punjab. So how can you term people who speak in hindko and are not in Punjab, as Punjabi Pathans, this sounds absurd. This must be removed. The link which leads to this assumption is from some 'jew' or 'christian' evangalist site, I believe this is not a notable reference. The majority of hindko speakers living in Battagram, Abbottabad, Mansehra and Haripur do not refer do themselves as Punjabi Pathans or even Pathans for that matter. The Tanolis which are the largest tribe in Hazara have a history of their own, likewise Syeds who are in large numbers in Hazara are certainly not Pathans, the Gujjars only speak in hindko to communicate with other Hazarawals and have their own language, the Awans, Ghakars, Karlals are certainly not Pathan. Tribes like Swatis who claim to be Pathans are not sure of their history, as they have been mentioned by many writers and researches to be people of indian origin. The history of jaduns being Pathan is also not certain. The name Punjabi Pathan can however be asociated to tribes like the Niazis who live in Mianwali but not to Hazarawal tribes.Wikitanoli (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing i found to be absurd is the list of notable hindko speaking people, which has only a few actors on it and does not mention the former hindko speaking President of Pakistan, former Chief Ministers, Ministers, Army Generals, Sport personalities and many other notable people of Hazara and other hindko speaking people of Pakistan.Wikitanoli (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• Salam My dear Tanoli Brother ! Do you know what Tanoli mean? Tanoli is not a race or blood line. you need to check the history carefully. Who are the Pushto speaking Thaniwals living at Afghanistan? An area at Afghanistan do call Thanawal and when people of that area shifted to Hazara they give it the same name. This is quite good example that how they were caring to save their identity. you can find thousands of places in punjab which got names of preious settlements at Afghanistan. If Jadoon/ Gadoons are not Afghan's then please let us know their origin through authentic reference. Who were Hazara Singh, Man Singh, Sir Abbott and Hari Singh and what was their role in your tribal history . I am sorry to say that so far non have seriously worked for history of Division. If you really love your area . better to help to correct the baised information we are reading today. Still a lot of cultural evidence exists which can take to the truth. and BTW whether do you have custom of gharolli or breaking chorrni (cover of water pot made of mud) during wedding?

Zarrigul (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

District Indkai and Faryab province seems to be place of Migration of Indkowans to recent location. They migrated to recent places alongth with Baluchs and Pashtu speaker. and Pashtun call them Inkai as singular and Indki as plural perhaps with the reference of their previous location as later they lost their native language. It is strange while we entering punjab the indentity with Hind is seldom found and commonly used word in history is Bharat instead of Hindostan. Most of Historian confused their origin with by using incorrectly the using the word Hindki . Zarrigul (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY TO MR TANOLI

HEY MR TANOLI U WRITE THAT " The history of jaduns being Pathan is also not certain". have u any prove of it ???? --

"Chach" is an area at District attock. Majority of Chachi's are eith Afghan or Awan. whereas terminalogy of chachi is bit tricky as it resembles with a famous afghan tribe Jhaji/Zazi/zazai. Awan do claim that Jhaji/Zazi/zazai is Awan tribe. I would like if someone explain how this area got the name of Chhach . Similarly another area of District attock is called "Chhab". 173.2.93.171 (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some Vandal ips are deleting/ corrupting verifiable content with citations .I have created this table to record such vandals .

User	Special:Contributions	User_talk	Comment
User: Waqarahmad18	Special:Contributions/Waqarahmad18	User_talk: Waqarahmad18	Waqarahmad18's vandal edit
User: 119.152.246.83	Special:Contributions/119.152.246.83	User_talk: 119.152.246.83	ip119.152.246.83's vandal edit ,this ip seems to be same as Waqarahmad18
User:116.58.96.7	Special:Contributions/116.58.96.7	User_talk: 116.58.96.7	Vandal edit of referenced content for unexplained reasons by 116.58.96.7 on 18th Jan

Intothefire (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Intothefire (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtun's recall them Andkai instead of Hindki. for common punjabi's Pashtun's use the term as Abo-wal, this difference make sense as these people migrated to this area along with Pashtuns and they call them Andkoi with the reference of there place of migration which is wrongly confused with Hind. I have uploaded two links ,travel guide of afghanistan and list of district in Faryab province which indicates the location of Andkoi/Andkhoy/Andkai District . Map , district information and travel information mention the place with three different speelings.

• [1] Andkoi, the real place of Migration from Afghanistan.
• [2], Travel & tour information of Afghanistan .

REGARDS

ZARRIGUL Zarrigul (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the previously deleted page

]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to semi-protect hindkowans article

Hindkowans and Hazargi

hi, i am from azad kashmir. I am hindkowan I want to tell you about the hindko language is not hazargi (a persian dialect). Hindko is a punjabi only name is Hindko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.83.86.153 (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

edit Malik Mubashir Awan (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite

reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge with Hindki

Hindkowan, Hindki, Andkoi - these three terms refer to people speaking dialects of

]

Hazarewal and Hindkowan are different people

This Hindko people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the title of the wiki page because Hazarewal and Hindkowan are two different group of people. Hindkowan are a complete different group of people. Hazarewal/Hazarawal is a geographical/linguistic group of people native to Hazara region of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Hazarewal people live in Abottabad, Haripur, Mansehra, Kohistan, Battagram cities of Hazara and a small minority living in Karachi. Hazarewal people have origins from Pashtun, Turk, Arab and races native to the region. Main Hazarewal tribes are Awan, Kohistani, Karlal,Karlugh and Abbasi. Some Pashtun Tribes Also Reside in Hazara Division such as Jadoons , Panni's , Swati's , Tareen's , Mashwani's , Tanoli's , Tahir-kheli , Dilazak , Utmanzai , Musakhail and these Pashtun Tribes Speak Hindko . Hazarewal speak Hindko with a sizeable population fluent in Pashto. Hazarewal make up about 2% of Pakistans total population.

Muhammet Selaheldine (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2016 (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) 19:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

http://www.barmazid.com/2015/01/panni-afghans-in-india.html

This Hindko people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

With sources mentioned, Please change the title of the wiki page because Hazarewal and Hindkowan are two different group of people. Hindkowan are a complete different group of people. Hazarewal/Hazarawal is a geographical/linguistic group of people native to Hazara region of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Hazarewal people live in Abottabad, Haripur, Mansehra, Kohistan, Battagram cities of Hazara^[1] and a small minority living in Karachi. Hazarewal people have origins from Pashtun, Turk, Arab and races native to the region. Main Hazarewal tribes are Jadoon, Tanoli, Swati, Awan, Kohistani, Karlal, Tareen, Karlugh, Dilazak, Utmanzai, Muhammadzai and Abbasi^[2]. Hazarewal speak Hindko with a sizeable population fluent in Pashto. Hindko is a Persian word for mountains of the Indian Subcontinent.^[3].

Muhammet Selaheldine (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide

reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Panni is Another Pashtun Tribe Residing in Panian, Haripur Hazara . Sohaibpanni (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2017 (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. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Notable Hindkowans Raj Kapoor https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/peshawar-still-remembers-bollywood-s-kapoors/story-GO9vUJ6b9q5aN3LKWCbwBO.html Shahzad010101 (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shahzad010101:  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. Seagull123 Φ 21:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:W28394, your contentious edits have now been reverted by User:Editorkamran, User:Kami2018, User:NavjotSR and now, myself. As such you need to gain consensus here for the changes you wish to make to the article. I see that you want to add unsourced sentences to the article that claim that Hindu and Sikh Hindko-speakers are settlers in the region, rather than being native there; this claim goes against the reliable sources that are currently extant in this article that describe the community as an Indo-Aryan one that formerly practiced Hinduism. The specific sentences that you have added, which are not supported by any sources are "Sikh settlers from Punjab were settled in Hindko speaking areas by Hari Singh Nalwa during the Sikh rule whereas Hindus were settled in Hindko speaking areas by the British Raj" and "Similarly, most of the other Sikh and Hindu settlers from Punjab adopted the Hindkowan identity". Additionally, you have removed the entire "Origin" section and "Religion" section. Please explain your reasoning for your problematic edits here, rather than edit war. I would like to have User:Fylindfotberserk take a look at this situation as well. Thank you, Anupam^Talk 15:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - the citations that we have now refer to the Hindkowan community as being of Hindu origin, being converted to Islam in "comparatively recent times". They are not settlers. W28394's edits smack of historical revisionism and nationalistic editing. NavjotSR (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this User:W28394 is involved in vandalism and is reverting every page without even reading the sources. He has broken the three revert rule multiple times. Clearly visible on pages like

Jalal-ud-din Khalji, Hindkowans, Khalji dynasty

. I have reported him to Admins but i haven't received a response yet

Kami2018 (talk) 06:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user

]

Evening everyone, User:Kami2018/User:Editorkamran] above is only paying attention to this article as a petty way of getting back at me for undoing the vandalism he was involved in on another wiki article (Khalji Dynasty). You can verify this by looking at the date of my first reverts on that article and his reverts on this article. He does not know have much knowledge about this topic. He has been warned by various users, including myself. I would like to request a senior editor to look into his wiki history and the number of warnings he has received for vandalism. Clearly User:Kami2018/User:Editorkamran is not interested in a consensus and has been in the past involved in vandalizing various wiki articles and enforcing his not so factual views on to other editors.

Coming to this article, it is well sourced, well structured, more up-to-date, and is being changed back to the old, poorly sourced and poorly structured version for no other reason than mentioned above.

1) 'I see that you want to add unsourced sentences to the article that claim that Hindu and Sikh Hindko-speakers are settlers in the region, rather than being native there'

—  This issue could be sorted out by a comprehensive [citation needed] tag rather than undoing every change made to the article. I will be adding a source to that now. 

2) "Additionally, you have removed the entire "Origin" section and "Religion" section. Please explain your reasoning for your problematic edits here".

— The Origin section is still in the article. So is the religion section. I never removed them. This kind of proves that you are undoing edits before even reading them and is nothing short of vandalism you have been warned about so many times before. 

3) The citations that we have now refer to the Hindkowan community as being of Hindu origin, being converted to Islam in "comparatively recent times".

— Hindkowan (hindko speaking) is a linguistic term. Not an ethnic or religious one. You can be ethnically Pashtun, Gujjar, Pahari, Punjabi, Kohistani, or Dardic, and be a Hindkowan. It is akin to saying all English language speakers today are historically the same people descending from the same ethnicty. The above statement is nothing short of historical illiteracy. 

4) W28394's edits smack of historical revisionism and nationalistic editing.

— It is quite the opposite. This article was filled with Sikh/Punjabi nationalism and linked the Hindkowans to India, when in fact, Hindkowans have almost nothing to do with India. It is not a major language in India and was reported to be only spoken by about 170 Indian people in the Indian census of 1960s and was not reported in the following censuses altogether.  It is only a major language in Pakistan where it is spoken by 5 million people and is designated as a separate language, independent of Punjabi. Hindkowans are NOT counted among the Punjabi speakers in Pakistan and therefore it is wrong adding the Punjabi language tags to this article. Just like it is wrong to say India is a country with a 'significant' population of Hindkowans as it, as mentioned above, housed only about 170 hindkowans the last time the language was a part of its census. 

5) He has broken the three revert rule multiple times. Clearly visible on pages like Jalal-ud-din Khalji, Hindkowans, Khalji dynasty.

— Reverting nonfactual information to factual information is not against wiki rules. Thanks.

Note: User:Kami2018 is now User:Editorkamran ?

User:Fylindfotberserk Please have a look here.

W28394 (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@W28394: Since you pinged me, I would like you to revert to this version which seems substantially sourced, discuss it here with @Anupam and Zakaria1978:, reach a mutual consensus and then start from there. Reversion to a preferred version and removal of large chunks of sourced content like this is not a good thing to do. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

] Same with article Khalji dynasty, here he removed a big chunk of information [[5]] without any references. Rather he used the old references which clearly mention the information he reverted. Since then he is in continous edit war on this page and the last revert he did was yesterday [[6]]. I have warned him, in return he has warned me. IDK how to deal with such person who is removing all information and is adding information which is not based on references. Clearly i have mentioned the words from the sources on the talk page and he came up with that i and another user are same account. This is not acceptable as he is also involved in edit war in the article that you mentioned. Statements from the references used within the article:

• His ancestors, after having migrated from Turkistan, had lived for over 200 years in the Helmand valley and Lamghan, parts of Afghanistan called Garmasir or the hot region, and had adopted Afghan manners and customs. They were, therefore, wrongly looked upon as Afghans by the Turkish nobles in India as they had intermarried with local Afghans and adopted their customs and manners. They were looked down as non Turks by Turks
• The prejudice of Turks was however misplaced in this case, for Khaljis were actually ethnic Turks. But they had settled in Afghanistan long before the Turkish rule was established there, and had over the centuries adopted Afghan customs and practices, intermarried with the local people, and were therefore looked down on as non-Turks by pure-bred Turks.
• The Khaljis were a Turkish tribe but having been long domiciled in Afghanistan, had adopted some Afghan habits and customs. They were treated as Afghans in Delhi Court. They were regarded as barbarians.
• This dynasty, like the previous Slave dynasty, was of Turkish origin, though the Khaljī tribe had long been settled in Afghanistan. Its three kings were noted for their faithlessness, their ferocity, and their penetration to the South of India

Kami2018 (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kami2018: Removing large amounts of sourced data and replacing them with preferred content, without discussion in the talk pages is disruptive. If they be displaying this kind of behavior simultaneously in a lot of articles, despite requests to engage in discussion then moeration becomes necessary. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk:, yes i agree and i have warned him for disruptive editing along with another user but he did the same in return for me. I have reported this user to the admins but i havent received a response on that. I have brought it up here as-well [[7]] and replied here [[8]]. He removes information but uses the same references used before. Can you advise further Kami2018 (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kami2018: Well, have to wait then. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Fylindfotberserk, unfortunately, I have to bother you again due to the petty targeting, complaining, and accusations initiated against me by Kami2018.

I have been accused of edit wars, disruptive editing, etc, for making factual and well sourced changes to articles. I have provided all required sources for every change I have made. You can find the reasoning and sources for them on the talk pages here [[9]],here [[10]] and here, [[11]].

Like I mentioned earlier, User:Kami2018 is only paying undue (unnecessarily undoing my edits) attention to the articles I edit as a petty way of getting back at me for editing a page he was involved in on another wiki article (Khalji Dynasty). You can verify this by looking at the date of my first reverts on that article and his reverts on the 'Hindkowan' article

Rather than engaging and replying on the talk pages, Kami2018 has resorted to flippant behavior and is trying to get me banned by various editors/moderators. Kami2018 has been obtrusively imposing his views on to others and has been warned against doing so by various users numerous times in the past as well. Pertaining to Kami2018's unfounded complaint about the Khalji article, I would like to remind him that he has been involved in undoing every other edit WITHOUT coming to a consensus himself? Is consensus = his approval? I have already answered all those questions here [[12]] but I shall do it here again.

Your counter argument is;

Clearly all the sources mention them as Turkic settled in afghanistan. I have reported your edit to the admin and i think you should read the references and then perform constructive edits. Once again: Statements from the references used within the article:

• His ancestors, after having migrated from Turkistan, had lived for over 200 years in the Helmand valley and Lamghan, parts of Afghanistan called Garmasir or the hot region, and had adopted Afghan manners and customs. They were, therefore, wrongly looked upon as Afghans by the Turkish nobles in India as they had intermarried with local Afghans and adopted their customs and manners. They were looked down as non Turks by Turks
• The prejudice of Turks was however misplaced in this case, for Khaljis were actually ethnic Turks. But they had settled in Afghanistan long before the Turkish rule was established there, and had over the centuries adopted Afghan customs and practices, intermarried with the local people, and were therefore looked down on as non-Turks by pure-bred Turks.
• The Khaljis were a Turkish tribe but having been long domiciled in Afghanistan, had adopted some Afghan habits and customs. They were treated as Afghans in Delhi Court. They were regarded as barbarians.
• This dynasty, like the previous Slave dynasty, was of Turkish origin, though the Khaljī tribe had long been settled in Afghanistan. Its three kings were noted for their faithlessness, their ferocity, and their penetration to the South of India

To your counter argument, I replied (after which you have not replied).

1) You are confusing ethnicity with genetics/ancestry when ethnicity is much more than that. An ethnicity is the state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition. It is not limited to genetics or ancestry.

2) This article is about the Khalji dynasty of Delhi. NOT the Khalaj people who were the ancestors of the Khalji Dynasty.

3) Like I said in my explanation earlier, Khaljis without a doubt descended from a Turkic tribe BUT were adopted into the Pashtun/Afghan ethnicity about a thousand years ago. BEFORE the Khalji Dynasty took the throne in Delhi. You ASSUME that due to Khaljis being descendants of the Khalaj people, they remained Turkic forever. Which is extremely ignorant given the fact that;

4) Pashtuns are NOT a homologous group of people. Pashtuns have historically descended from different groups of people. From the hephthalites to the khaljis. Today, the Khaljis/Ghilzais are the largest tribal confederacy among the Pashtun ethnicity and are nowhere to be found among the Turkic people. They re purely called Afghan/Pashtun, not Turkic. Some popular Khaljis today are/were Ashraf Ghani (President of Afghanitsan) and Mullah Omar (Ex Taliban Chief), they are referred to as Pashtuns, not Turks.

5) The main question here is whether the Khaljis of the DELHI SULTANATE were Pashtunized by the time they ascended the throne and the obvious answer is YES.

6) Like the sources state, "They were looked upon as Afghans by the Turkish nobles in India as they had intermarried with local Afghans and adopted their customs and manners". 'Wrongly' does not matter in this context as we have already established the above points about the identity of the Khalaj people, who were the ancestors of the Khalji Dynasty, and the identity of the Khalji Dynasty itself.

7) Other sources reestablish the FACT that the Khalji Dynasty of Delhi were more Afghan/Pashtun than their ancestors, the Khalaj, and that they had adopted the Afghan/Pashtun ethnicity. "The Khaljis had over the centuries adopted Afghan customs and practices, intermarried with the local people, and were therefore looked down on as non-Turks by pure-bred Turks" and "The Khaljis were a Turkic tribe but having been long domiciled in Afghanistan, had adopted some Afghan habits and customs. They were treated as Afghans in Delhi Court. They were regarded as barbarians"

8) Going by all the above statements, you will have to completely lack comprehension skills to NOT see that the Khalji Dynasty was NOT a Turkic dynasty but a Pashtun/Afghan dynasty of Turkic descent which was entirely Pashtunized by the time it took the throne from the pure bred Turks. If you have any doubt, refer to point 1 again. Thanks.

I will not be engaging with him any further as he has time and again showed he is not one to be reasoned with. Thank you.

W28394 (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:W28394, given that User:Kami2018, User:Editorkamran, User:Fylindfotberserk, User:NavjotSR and I have taken issue with your revision, the best thing you can do for yourself is to respect the current consensus that exists for the previous revision and self-revert at this time. You can then state your concerns with the consensus version and allow others to address them. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anupam I have already answered all of their concerns above, they have not replied with a reasonable counter argument.

22:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC) Hello, I was hoping you could help with the edits on this article. Mar4d, Saqib, Samee, Sahara4u, Spasage

1) I removed sources stating that "Other Hindko-speakers, mostly of the Hindu and Sikh faiths, have been living in Afghanistan for centuries and are known as Hindki". This is because it was not mentioned in the source provided.

2) I removed the Punjabi language tags and the Punjabi fonts because beginning with the 1981 census, speakers of Saraiki and Hindko were no longer included in the total numbers for Punjabis. Pakistan is where perhaps over 99% of the Hindkowans live and they have been classified as a distinct group of people, independent of the Punjabis and thus the Punjabi language font and tags are not required in this article. Once again, all this is well sourced information.

3) I had to remove a bunch of sources from the article, mostly because they dated from the British Raj era. The issue of whether of not such sources are reliable

. The consensus has for many years been that they are not and, as such, we should not use them.

4) I had to remove countries from "regions with significant population" as the Hindkowan population in those countries was quite clearly, not 'significant' enough and amounting to only a couple hundred people (compared to 5 million in Pakistab).

4) Other than removing the above mentioned contents of the page, I also added more information to the article. All of this was well sourced and well structured.

5) Due to this, the page remained relatively inactive edit wise for 5 months before Kami2018 reverted everything, and took the article back to its out of date, poorly sourced, poorly structured version.

According to wiki, "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." As mentioned above, my edits were pretty much unchanged for 5 months and thus we can assume that it by and large had the consensus of editors who came across it from March 8 to August 10 (when the user mentioned above reverted all my edits for reasons I am pretty sure we know)

Therefore, I think it goes against common sense reverting from a well sourced well structured article to a poorly sourced poorly structured article. A consensus should not be required and would have been required if the article was an essay based on opinions and not when it is an article about a demography backed with well sourced facts. As wiki says, " Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Common sense doesn't need to be a policy; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy."

W28394 (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:W28394, thank you for now taking the time to discuss your concerns on the talk page rather than edit warring. There does exist a broad consensus against your edits, as demonstrated by the comments/restorations of User:Kami2018, User:Editorkamran, User:Fylindfotberserk, User:NavjotSR and myself. Let's take the time to address each of your concerns. In your first point, you state that you removed the sentence "Other Hindko-speakers, mostly of the Hindu and Sikh faiths, have been living in Afghanistan for centuries and are known as Hindki" because you claimed that it "was not mentioned in the source provided". However, when one looks at the source, it clearly states that "Besides Pakistan, Hindko is also spoken in Afghanistan, where it is referred to as Hindki and largely understood to be the language of its non-Muslim population, i.e. Afghan Hindus and Sikhs." You correctly mention that after the "1981 census, speakers of Saraiki and Hindko were no longer included in the total numbers for Punjabis". This should answer your question of why many Hindko-speakers who migrated to India classified their ethnicity as Punjabi, as Hindko-speakers broadly understood themselves to be Punjabis around the time of the partition. Nevertheless, I can agree that the language used to list the scripts in the lede can be changed to "Hindko". Given that several sources describe the migration of Hindko speakers to India, there is no need to remove that country from the infobox as being a place where Hindko speakers reside. You claim that you "added more information to the article" and that "this was well sourced and well structured". However, you have added unsourced and false statements such as "Sikh settlers from Punjab were settled in Hindko speaking areas by Hari Singh Nalwa during the Sikh rule whereas Hindus were settled in Hindko speaking areas by the British Raj" without any references. Being an Indo-Aryan group, there is nothing to suggest that the Hindu Hindkowans were "settlers"; rather they were always part of the native population of Hindkowans. Additionally, please do not create additional headings for the same discussion; it is confusing to new users who might wish to discuss this here. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:W28394, I have supplanted the sources that you took issue with and have replaced them with updated scholarship. At this time, I do not think there should be any issues with the article but let us wait and see what others have to say. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anupam

"However, when one looks at the source, it clearly states that besides Pakistan, Hindko is also spoken in Afghanistan, where it is referred to as Hindki and largely understood to be the language of its non-Muslim population, i.e. Afghan Hindus and Sikhs."

I rightly removed that as the article never stated "Other Hindko-speakers, mostly of the Hindu and Sikh faiths, have been living in Afghanistan for centuries and are known as Hindki". The article states, like you have pointed out, that "Hindko is also spoken in Afghanistan, where it is referred to as Hindki and largely understood to be the language of its non-Muslim population, i.e. Afghan Hindus and Sikhs". It says nothing about the duration of stay and also disputes the equation of religion with Hindko in the very next sentence reading "this is NOT entirely correct, for there are Hindko-speaking Muslims in Afghanistan as well as Pashto-speaking non-Muslims".

"This should answer your question of why many Hindko-speakers who migrated to India classified their ethnicity as Punjabi, as Hindko-speakers broadly understood themselves to be Punjabis around the time of the partition."

That is false. Hindko speakers did not classify their ethnicity as Punjabi pre partition. Hazara Division in NWFP was/is the hub of Hindkowans and pre partition, people did not identify as Punjabis. They were classified, even by census reports, as ethnically Pathan, Gujjar, Awan, etc. but not Punjabis. After Hazara, Peshawar basin is where most Hindkowans reside, where once again, the Hindkowans were referred to as Peshawari or “Kharay". The popular Bollywood families who migrated from Peshawar to Mumbai wrongly ( wrongly because they settled in Peshawar from Lyallpur, Punjab, as civil servants[13] and were thus Punjabis ) called themselves "Hindu Pathans", or even Peshawris, but not Punjabis. [14] [15] [16]. Other Sikhs and Hindus who migrated from NWFP did not adopt the Punjabi identity because they were already ethnically Punjabis who were settlers in NWFP from Punjab (will discuss in detail below).

However, you have added unsourced and false statements such as "Sikh settlers from Punjab were settled in Hindko speaking areas by Hari Singh Nalwa during the Sikh rule whereas Hindus were settled in Hindko speaking areas by the British Raj" without any references. eing an Indo-Aryan group, there is nothing to suggest that the Hindu Hindkowans were "settlers"; rather they were always part of the native population of Hindkowans.

A great majority of the Hindu and Sikh Hindkowans were indeed settlers to the region. There is plenty of historical references corroborating this fact. All censuses pre partition in the 20th century mention this fact.

"The development of the Sikh Confederacy and the development of the Sikh Empire (1716–1849), led to Sikhs migrating to conquered parts of their empire such as Ladakh and Peshawar." ^[1]

" Only 10 percent of the Muhammadans of the NWFP province live in urban areas against 54 and 55 percent of the Hindus and Sikh respectively. This explanation is that a great majority of the natives of the province are Muhammadans, while the Hindus and Sikhs are chiefly immigrant traders and sepoys." (Indian census 1911) [17]

" About 140 thousand in migrants were enumerated in NWFP in the 1931 census. Punjab was the main area of origin accounting for three quarters of the total in-migrants. Punjab was the largest contributor to the Indian army. As well as a large number of Hindu and Sikh trader, the majority of whom spent their working life in NWFP were actually born in the Punjab" (Indian census 1931)[18]

I have more sources but I am guessing these would suffice for now.

W28394 (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:W28394, though the source does not mention a time duration, you removed altogether mention of Hindu and Sikh Hindko speakers living in Afghanistan from the lede. That isn't acceptable and will stay in the article, although as a

WP:V. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with Anupam, removal like this is not acceptable. Since the sources support these texts. Wording them as close to what the sources say without close paraphrasing can always be done. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comments Anupam has made are sensible, along with their recent improvement of citations. There is no evidence that those who follow the Hindu religion are somehow settlers there brought in by the British. That's

WP:OR and misleading. NavjotSR (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Anupam

Though the source does not mention a time duration, you removed altogether mention of Hindu and Sikh Hindko speakers living in Afghanistan from the lede.

The source did not mention what was cited on wiki. Hence removed. The source also did not equate Hindko to only the non Muslim minority of Afghanistan. It stated that the language was spoken by Muslims and non Muslims alike in the country.

You are correct that some Hindus of Peshawar identified themselves as Hindu Pathans because many of them spoke Pashto and identified with Pashtun culture.

Have to correct you on that. Peshawar of more than hundred years ago was a walled city with an overwhelming majority of Hindko-speakers. Majority of Peshawarites were Muslims but a tiny influential minority was Hindu. Hindus and Sikhs in Peshawar were by and large Hindko speaking. Including the Hindu Pathans. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]

Hindko speakers identified themselves as Punjabis and Hindko was considered a dialect of Punjabi until recent years.

What is your source for this? I have already mentioned, with sources, that this is an absurd claim. Had they considered themselves Punjabi, they would not have, right from the formation of Pakistan, protested against being counted as Punjabis right from 1947. Even the non Muslim Hindkowans of Afghanistan who have settled in the west do not call their language Punjabi and claim a distinct identity. [24]

The claim about Hindu Hindkowans being settlers is absurd because all speakers of Indo-Aryan languages practiced Hinduism and Buddhism; it is for this reason that A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province: Based on the Census Report for the Punjab, 1883 mentions that Hindkowans are "of Hindu origin", "speak Hindko" and "have been converted to Islam in comparatively recent times". In other words, the Muslim Hindko speakers are descendants of Hindu Hindko speakers.

1) " A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province " is not accepted by wiki as a reliable source.

2) Even if it were, lets assume that "the Muslim Hindko speakers are descendants of Hindu Hindko speakers". How does that equate to non native Hindu migrants from regions such a Punjab, to pass of as natives of the NWFP? Indo Aryan is not synonymous with the Indian nationality that has not existed prior to 1947. An Indo Aryan Bengali Hindu migrating and living in the Indo Aryan Hindko speaking areas of NWFP will be a settler to the region. His/her religion will not give him/her the pass to pass of as a native. Your reasoning here is beyond absurd.

Hindu Hindkowans are not settlers, but the original members of the ethnic group. That makes sense, in light of the etymology of the word "Hindko", which means "Indian". The Muslim Hindko speakers are descendants of Hindu Hindko speakers, as with other neighbouring Indo-Aryan ethnic groups such as Kashmiris, Sindhis, Punjabis, etc.

Hindko does not mean Indian. Hindko literally translates to Indian Mountains. Hind meaning India and Ko meaning Mountains. Its persian/pashtu. What other historical reference have you come across that translated Indians as Hindko? Hindkowan (hindko speaking) is a linguistic term. Not an ethnic or religious one. You can be ethnically Pashtun, Syed, Gujjar, Pahari, Kohistani, or Dardic, and be a Hindkowan. Almost half the Hindkowans today are ethnically Pashtun. Your reasoning here is akin to saying all English language speakers in North America today are historically the same people descending from the same ethnicity. Why are you even using a linguistic classification here? What is next, using the Indo-European term to conclude that Portuguese settlers of the coast of Goa were natives because they are Indo-European?

The sources you've provided say nothing about Hindu Hindko speakers or Sikh Hindko speakers being settlers; they simply mention that Sikhs migrated to other parts of the empire, including Peshawar, but they do not state that Hindko speakers practicing Sikhism settled there (they more than likely converted to the religion when it was brought there). Unless and until you provide a reference that states that Hindu Hindko speakers or Sikh Hindko speakers are migrants to Peshawar, it cannot be mentioned in the article.

More than likely is not a fact, it is an assumption. The sources are indeed speaking about Sikh and Hindu Hindko speakers. Hindu and Sikh populations (mostly traders) of the region overwhelmingly spoke in Hindko. My sources mentioned that Sikhs and Hindus settled in the region from Punjab. There is historical record of them settling in the region from the 19th century onward. These non-Muslim migrant/settlers of the region were overwhelmingly Hindko speaking. There are plenty of records stating this fact. It can easily be concluded that the Hindu/Sikh settlers were indeed Hindko speakers as we have enough reliable sources stating so. [25] [26] [27].

Now coming to the current version of the changes made to the article, once again, I see no reason for having Punjabi font and language tags to the article as it is;

a) Not a Punjabi language in Pakistan where 99 percent Hindkowans reside.

b) Not even a dialect in India anymore.

Aren't wiki article supposed to based on the present and not the 20th century?

Another non sourced piece of Information in the article is "Later, with the spread of Sikhism and the rise of the Sikh Empire beginning in the eighteenth century A.D., some Hindkowans became Sikhs.". None of the sources mention this.

"During the Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent, which took place from the 12th century A.D. onward, many of the Hindkowans converted to Islam". A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province is not considered a reliable source as per wiki.

"Hindko speakers living in Afghanistan are primarily of the Hindu and Sikh faiths and are referred to as Hindki", Once again, the source itself mentions this to be untrue.

"Other Hindu Hindkowans migrated to India from their native region of the NWFP after the partition of India in 1947". The source does not mention native. Like you said, if it does not mention them being native to NWFP, it cannot be added to the article.

W28394 (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:W28394, the word "Punjabi" was changed to "Hindko". There should be no problem with this; Sikh and Hindu Hindko speakers use Gurmukhi to write the language so this is not an issue. I will reword existing sentences you take issue with to reflect what the sources state. You have no references to support your claim that Hindu Hindko speakers are migrants and therefore, this will not be included in the article per the comments of

compromise on the article content and you will have to accept that not everything you wish for will be reflected in the article. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 14:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• What a long discussion! I don't have much to say on the substance of the debate, but I see that some of the disagreement concerns passages identical to ones I've previously removed from Hindko. For example, there's this claim that Hindko-speakers in KPK were "perceived as an opposition to the influx [of?] Pashto-speaking Pashtuns in the region". This is followed by seven references: the first two (actually different version of the same text) only support the previous part of the sentence, the third reference is to a text that I don't have access to (so can't comment on), and the last two are again different editions of the same text by Rahman, who is quoted here out of context. He discusses the late Raj-era attempts at introducing Pashto in schools, and the opposition this got from Hindko members of the assembly (so it's opposition in this very narrow context, and it's definitely not opposition to influx of Pashtuns). Another bit of text is about Hindkowans being present in Kalat, Balochistan – thay may be true, but the source (again, it's one source cited twice in a row) doesn't provide enough detail to discern whether "Hindko" here refers specifically to the Hindkowans, or more broadly to any Indo-Aryan speakers (see Talk:Hindko#Spoken in Balochistan?). Also, why does the lede contain Gurmukhi? The two written traditions of Hindko (in Abbotabad and in Peshawar) both use the Arabic script. Also, I see that the lede mentions the term "Hindki", but this term has taken on negative connotations in recent decades and is considered pejorative, so this fact needs to be mentioned at the outset. – Uanfala (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments User:Uanfala. I have gone ahead and removed the clause about the "opposition to the influx" as what you state makes sense. The references all mention the existence of Hindu and Sikh Hindko speakers and so they're helpful for the article. I've also gone ahead and removed the scripts from the article since this seems to be causing an issue, albeit it seems obvious that the Hindu and Sikh community would be using Gurmukhi to write the language, especially where they still exist in Afghanistan. The term Hindki is helpful to mention because its the historical term used for the community and the one that the Encylopaedia Britannica uses; apart from the one source you have found extant in the Hindko language article, other academic sources make no reference to negative connotations and the one that does only states that it is pejorative in the Pashto language, not in the Hindko language itself. The reference in the lede clearly states "The term Hindki is often used to refer to a speaker of the Hindko language (Shackle 1980: 482), but in popular usage it may refer to the language as well." As an alternate term, it is thus included in the lede. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anupam

The word "Punjabi" was changed to "Hindko". There should be no problem with this; Sikh and Hindu Hindko speakers use Gurmukhi to write the language so this is not an issue

This is not true. Once again, you are repeating the same claims that I have answered before.

Sikh and Hindu Hindko speakers use Gurmukhi to write the language so this is not an issue.

It is indeed an issue as you are blatantly making facts up here. Hindko was removed from the Indian language census in the 1960s (when it only had under 200 speakers) and is not recognized as a dialect of Punjabi anymore.

You have no references to support your claim that Hindu Hindko speakers are migrants and therefore, this will not be included in the article . I have LITERALLY refuted this, with credible references above.

I have worked with you to compromise on the article content and you will have to accept that not everything you wish for will be reflected in the article.

I am sorry but wiki is fact based and as long as I make fact based and policy based changes, I do not require a consensus from you. As wiki states, "Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Common sense doesn't need to be a policy; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy."

Having said that, I believe this version of the article you have worked towards is better and I can give my consensus to it. However, I am going to make three changes and those are the removal of;

a) "During the Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent, which took place from the 12th century A.D. onward, many of the Hindkowans converted to Islam". A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province is not considered a reliable source as per wiki.

b) "Other Punjabi subgroups". None of the tribes/castes on that page are residents of NWFP/KPK but are residents of Punjab, and identify as Punjabis. Other than that, Hindkowans are like I have said numerous times before, an ethnic group independent of Punjabi ethnicity today.

c) I would also like to add population figures of speakers of Hindko of Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan.

Thanks

W28394 (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article really within the scope of WikiProject India?

There are various official languages in India at the state/territory level. The Eighth Schedule to the Indian Constitution contains a list of 22 scheduled languages. They are Hindi, Bengali, Marathi, Telugu, Tamil, Gujrati, Urdu, Kannada, Odia, Malayalam, Punjabi, Assamese, Maithali, Santali, Kashmiri, Nepali, Sindhi, Dogri, Konkani, Manipuri, Bodo, and Sanskrit. [28].

Hindko is not mentioned in any Indian language or language dialect category. According to 2011 census India, the Punjabi language had a total of 33 million speakers. Out of these 33 million, the dialects under Punjabi were categorized as a) Punjabi: 31 million speakers b) Bagri: 1.6 million speakers c) Bisalpuri Kahluri: 300k speakers d) Bhateali: 24k speakers e) 'Others': 4k speakers

5 different Punjabi dialects and none of them is categorized as Hindko.[29] The last time Hindko was included in an Indian census was in the late 60s and Hindko speakers were counted to be around 200 people. So is it not wrong to tag this article under wiki india project when the language is not even spoken in the country?

Mar4d, Saqib, Samee, Sahara4u, Spasage

W28394 (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:W28394, as the article mentions, many of the Hindu and Sikh Hindko-speakers migrated to an independent India at the time of the partition. Because at that time, Hindko-speakers did not have a separate identity apart from Punjabi, they were/are classed along with speakers of Punjabi, which is the reason from the small and inaccurate figure. There is no reason to edit war of WikiProject templates. If people from that WikiProject want to help improve the article, they are welcome to do so. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anupam, I have already replied, with sources, the fact that a majority of the Indian Hindkowans were settlers from Punjab and the fact that native Hindkowans did not consider themselves Punjabi nor were they considered Punjabis in census reports pre partition (all mentioned above [30]) . But lets assume that they were not. The question that arises now is that with close to zero Hindkowans in India in the 21st century, does this article really warrant a WikiProject India tag based on 70 year old, now defunct, identities? Nobody is edit warring on WikiProject templates. Just a query. Regards W28394 (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupam and W28394: The Indian census clubs a lot of sub-languages/dialects under the main language. If Hindko is a sub-language of Punjabi, then it is very likely that Hindowan numbers from Punjab, India is counted as Punjabi. This happened to a lot of sub-languages/presumed sub-languages of Gujarati, Marathi, Bengali, Hindi, etc. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fylindfotberserk, I completely agree and stated that in the section above. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an "Other" sub-section within Punjabi that has 4000 plus speakers [31]. That is likely to include sub-languages liek Hindko. Also note that Hindi has 100 million plus in "Others". Census figures are always like that. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Research that I have done as of late states that prior to the partition of India in 1947, this Punjabi dialect was known as "Pishori" or "Peshawari". I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fylindfotberserk, Anupam As mentioned earlier, a) Hindko not a dialect of Punjabi in Pakistan (where 99% of the speakers reside) but given the status of an independent language. b) Hindko has been removed from the Indian census language list in the 1960s. W28394 (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gh

Hello hazarawals 182.177.235.57 (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat text

The paragraph starting "there is no generic name..." repeats in the beginning sections of the article. It should be removed from one of the sections. 2600:1702:3860:9B10:E571:202B:6B1:A5C6 (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]