Jump to content

Talk:Awan (tribe)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ali Imran Awan (talk | contribs) at 08:00, 7 April 2022 (→‎Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Awans.: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Veena Malik?

This talk page is for discussion of improvements to the article. Discussing alleged origins of a living person are not within scope. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

Want me to ask this on her wikipedia page ? She's notable, has an article on wikipedia --2001:1970:5E5B:AE00:FDB5:B76B:216:451B (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need a reliable source in which she identifies herself as an Awan - there is no mention of that on her Wikipedia page whatsoever, let alone a reference to support such a statement.
Reliable means published in a book, major newspaper or magazine with a reputation for fact-checking - not a self-published source, blog, facebook, twitter or similar source
She identifies herself means she needs to make a clear statement of self-identity - this is not what others have said, not who her parents are/were, or what they have said, not based on her family name or upbringing, but a clear statement "I am an Awan" or a very similar wording - Arjayay (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Dilip Kumar

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

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

Jashua

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

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


Awans are 100% Indo-Europeans

In recent times, there have been several large scale DNA tests of various Pakistani races/tribes; and I have read some papers that are of quite reliable provenance , that seem to prove that Awans are 100% of Indo-European origins. Mithocondrial DNA testing has shown with over 80% accuracy rates that the Awans are closely related to a number of Rajput and other indigenous South Asian tribes in Northern Punjab and nearby regions . The fact that some tribes converted totally and some partially to Islam at a certain time has nothing to do with the genetic factors. There are several old Hindu tribes that converted entirely and are all Muslims today eg Jhodras, Ghebas, Noons , Arains, Dhond-Abbasis, Karlals, Bambas etc ; whereas there are others that are mostly Muslims in Pakistan area now with some smaller non-Muslim populations in India -such as Tiwanas, Khattars, Tarars and so on. I shall try to dig out the DNA based research articles and share here for everyone's edification. I strongly believe we should all forget about these fake claims (due to our continued complexes about our old /true origins after accepting Islam) and take pride that we are who we are , in fact , and that our elders did accept the truth of Islam centuries ago. (Hamid Ali Awan, Havelian, NW Pakistan)

Chief

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

Well for your information "Nawab of Kalabagh" is a family heriditary title it passes from father to son Nawab Malik Amir Mohammad Khan died in 1967 after which his Son Nawab Malik Muzzafar Khan became Nawab and after his death his son now is nawab the death of one does not mean the end of the titular lineage second as for the title Nawab meaning something it is obvious that you have an axe to grind with the ancient royalty of the indian subcontinent but sadly for your kind information i must add that Even in the sourced article you talk about it can be clearly seen that the Descendants of the"Formidable Nawab" as the article says still hold power and are in politics etc as well and even apart from that.I have visited that area in my research extensively since 2002 onwards and what i have heard and seen there is that the nawab is still a formidable force though not to the old extent but at least 75percent of their power remains if you have doubts just read the daily newspaper's of the mianwali district on facebook and you will get an idea its not like india where all power's were taken from the ruler's as this is a tribal system and the cheif still holds power over his people they still have more than 50percent of their state to this day as for the same source saying the nawabs have been here since 16th century he was just quoting heresay from the mouths of illetrate people while i am quoting from a well known published historian of awan history who is also an awan himself and must know more about his true history than what some half literate people a newsreporter interviewd and than again he was writing after Nawab Amir Mohammad khans death in the time of his son Nawab Malik Muzzafar I shall quote from his book on the other Page on the Late Nawabs history as I see you do not like to admit old sources either mughal or british i also have a much older hindu source named the chachnama and i shall quote both of these and some other's on the other page as well i think this is explanation enough i shall now revert my edit if you have satisfied your doubts Yoohooyoo (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for your saying that the author of the news article said 16th century he said at least the 16th century as the nawabs and their fort of dhankot is menotioned in the tuzk-i-baburi of emperor babur whom you dont belive any way that the fort and its rulers were there is even acknowleged by the chachnama of ancient hindu india and that is time immemorial as the fort and some other hindu temples on mari indus ridge are from the time of the mahabharata rather the pandavas stayed in those temples for 3years during their exile and that to a layman is time immemorial so there you have it any more doubts Yoohooyoo (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Before we take this any further can we please at least agree on a couple of things? Firstly, the information given at WP:OR means that our own personal research and knowledge counts for nothing here. Secondly, the information at WP:CONSENSUS means that the details given at User:Sitush/CasteSources, which have already been mentioned to you, are indeed valid and not just some crazed opinion of my own. I think it is important that you understand our policies before digging deeper into this because otherwise we will be talking past each other instead of with each other. You may also benefit from reading WP:NPA and WP:EW. - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you are non biased than here are the bare minimum facts i gave british source which i admit was not acceptable per policy than i gave a mughal source which i could not find anywhere in your or anybody elses guidelines but you said it is "not" acceptable so i gave a modern well known published source and even than rather than using the talk page "you" blatantly removed "my" edit and now when the page is according to your point of veiw correct than you go to talk,even still i "did not" edit war rather am using the talk page which means that "I" gave way yet "You" still blame me now get an independant ajudicator and tell me who is the enforcer.Now as for my objections well you did not as you should have answered any point by point which means that up to this point i have been by default correct and as this is the situation.I think there is no objection of my restoring my latest edit as factual and per policy because i may not know anything but the famous author of my source certainly did and i even pointed out the details in the other news source so there you are.Now either raise point by point objections to my "edit" so that i may "once again" rectify them because if you talk barebones facts with me rather than the "you" and "me" nonsense that i have so clearly emphasised above i am more than happy for i know my facts past and present or pray hold your horses and i shall restore my edits.Isnt that clear enough. Yoohooyoo (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not question whether or not the present Nawab wields considerable political power etc because that is irrelevant to the statement you were trying to insert. Abu Fazl and, indeed, all chroniclers from centuries ago, are not considered reliable sources. It is nothing to do with Awan people or even the present-day Pakistan - it is a consensus established by the Wikipedia community in a far more general manner. Please consider what is said at WP:HISTRS for some background to this situation. And, for what it is worth, we generally do not like to use caste- or tribe-affiliated sources regardless of the period in which they were written: they're usually biassed, often inaccurate and always the opinion of the writer. - Sitush (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would also please like to refer to the note left on my Talk Page by User: Yoohooyoo and the rather offensive and aggressive tone therein. I merely edited the article to reflect a fact-- that at no time was the title of 'Nawab' given to the Maliks/Awan chiefs of Kalabagh as an hereditary one. As far as I could ascertain from British records, the father of late Malik Amir Muhammad Khan was given a personal title of 'Nawab' for his services during World War 1 and this title , in effect, died out with him. It was not for his descendants to use. People can call themselves what they like, de facto , if they have the local force to assert themselves; but that does not change the facts. I am sorry to see this extremely negative and bullying attitude going on. Wikipedia used to be rather strict about such things but I am sad to note a lax approach in recent years, browbeating has become common. That is why is it hardly worth it editing things here anymore and I have reduced my involvement. I would still urge Wikipedia to take notice and take hold of the reins again, if they can. Thanks. AsadUK200 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)AsadUK200[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2020

Include the Surname Chaudhary with Khan and Malik. Majority Muslim Chaudharys belong to this Awan Caste. 125.99.141.222 (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GoingBatty (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fake sourcing

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

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

I have just cleaned it up again. I know many Pakistani tribes like to claim a glorious Arab past but it is usually nonsense, just as Indian castes usually spout nonsense in claiming to be descendants of kings and warriors.

Sultan-ul-Fahq publishers are not reliable, Herbert Feldman seems to have been some sort of political scientist & novelist rather than historian or anthropologist. That there is POV pushing going on here is evident because the tribe members are ignoring alternate theories from equally poor sources that mention Bactrian Greek, Jat and Rajput origins. See this op-ed for some general background, and also this. We desperately need good sources here because there are clearly many problems. - Sitush (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Sultan-ul-Fahq publishers are reliable but I still entertained your concerns and replaced the citation with other reliable sources. I am not sure what you are accusing Feldman of, is it his lack of knowledge or the bias? Yes, There is a POV pushing going on here and is evident by your edits as you are not ready to accept the Majority point of view established with reliable sources. The sources which claims Awan of being a tribe with Non-Arab origin are extremely poor, and every claim of their Non-Arab decent is entirely different from one another. If you still think that the Majority claim of Tribe's Arab origin is biased then please read WP:BIASED. I am reverting your edit. Have a nice day. :)--Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Ahmad Hasan Dani unreliable, as you said last year re this removal. The POV that is going on, and which you have been trying to assert for a year or more, is that of wanting to disregard other opinions about the origin. There is a reason why Jaffrelot says "legend" in the quote we use. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I said that because many books that are attributed to A.H Dani are not even written by him. Like the book which was quoted was not written by A.H Dani and moreover, it is not likely that he has written anything about the History of Awans because He was a Pakistani Archeologist who specialised in History of Northern Parts of Pakistan while the centre of the Awan tribe is in Punjab. --Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really? He was an archaeologist and historian. How are you sure that he didn't write it? Who did? Is there another A H Dani who was active at that time? Whatever, "unreliable" wasn't your reason for removing it, was it? - Sitush (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can see at least 10 mentions of "Awan" in this book by Dani, which suggests you are wrong in saying he never wrote of them. Unfortunately, I can't use it yet because I only have snippet view. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this article from the Pakistan Journal of History and Culture (Jan – Jun 2017 VOL.XXXVIII #1) explicitly state on p 67 that there are various origin theories? - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article you pointed out states

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

It also supports the Majority view of the scholars on the subject. It says that different sources claim Awan tribe's origin differently but as I stated earlier that the sources which claims Awan of being a tribe with Non-Arab origin are extremely poor, and every claim of their Non-Arab decent is entirely different from one another as is evident by the article you referred. --Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do not get to choose your preferred theory. Please read WP:NPOV & note what I and others have previously said all over this page, ie it is clear there is no certainty & we must not pretend that there is. - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst not about the Awans, this has some useful background info to the Arab debate, notably where it speaks of the works of Dani and of Mubarak Ali. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Feldman doesn't mention anything regarding the origin of Awans. And Sitush is right regarding fake/poor sourcing and misrepresentation of the sources. BTW, Awans are just mentioned in a footnote on the page cited by Muhammadahmad79. And here is the relevant quote from the page no. 385 of the source:

9 Without wishing to press this unfairly or too far, it is worth noting that the Awan tribe of Punjabi Mussulmans to which the Kalabagh family belongs and of which it is the traditional head, has been described as: ‘... sensitive to opposition and ... pursues its enmities to the bitter end’. Government of India Handbook for the Indian Army—Punjabi Mussulmans, 2nd Edition, 1935.

Also, the other cited source for the Awan's origin claim is a translation of some 17th-century poetry and is published by Lulu.com – see WP:SPS. Such type of primary sources are not considered WP:HISTRS. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sitush, I have a copy of the latest edition of The Indus Saga, which is cited twice in this article. And that book is also used as a fake source. The Awans are just discussed on a single page, and here is the relevant quote:
  • Ahsan, Aitzaz (2005). The Indus Saga: From Pataliputra to Partition. Roli Books. p. 110. ISBN 978-93-5194-073-9.
quote

II. The Arab contact
For 143 years after its conquest by the Arabs in AD 711, Sindh remained a part of the Islamic state, first under Ummayyad and then under Abbasid rulers. Since most of the caliphs were preoccupied with palace intrigues, Sindh, as a peripheral state removed from the prolific trade routes, remained substantially autonomous. It never obtained a position of high priority in the scheme of Arab administrators. No expansionist designs were directed towards it after Qasim’s premature withdrawal from Multan. The influence of Arab generals and governors upon the culture of this land was, therefore, negligible. In any case, it was not enduring.7
There has, nevertheless, been a tendency among Indus tribes to trace their descent to the Arabs, and particularly to one of the first four caliphs of Islam, or the Rightly Guided Caliphs. And this inclination is not exclusive to the Syeds for whom the lineage is essential to their status, regardless of their position in life. Many of the Pashtuns, the Baloch,8 and such Punjabi tribes as the Arrains and the Awans, claim a similar descent. There appears to be little tangible historical evidence of any mass movement of the Arab race towards Indus. Nor does evidence of racial stock substantively corroborate such claims. The Arabs were primarily Semites. The Indus tribes were either Central Asian or aboriginal, or a mixture of both. Nor could the descendants of a few Arab families have multiplied in such numbers as to inhabit the entire Indus region. Many of these claims appear to be fictional.
7. Though Gankovsky feels that the Arab conquest did speed up the process of feudalization of Sindh and, because Sindh became isolated from the other areas of Indus and India, it consolidated its population into a single feudal nationality. See Gankovsky, The Peoples of Pakistan: An Ethnic History, 117.
8. See A. B. Awan, Balochistan: Historical and Political Processes (1985) 21.

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


Sitush, You could have simply wrote about A.H Dani below my previous answer instead of writing it above my previous answer and giving an impression that I didn't addressed that. It's unethical. I never claimed that I am "sure" A.H Dani did not mention Awans, I said that it is not likely and I still think the same because it was not his area of research. Plus, a book was cited which was never written by him. I just looked at the snippet view of the book by Dani which you stated all I could find was "Awan" being written as a surname or it is written that This raja must have ruled over Awan tribe etc. Yes, I have read the talk page and I think that discussion of minority views regarding any tribe or caste is pretty common in the Talk page of every caste/tribes related article. I also read WP:NPOV as advised and believe that if there is reliable enough source to state the minority view, then it should also be stated (please see WP:GEVAL). --Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NitinMlk, Thank you for pointing out that I misquoted Feldman but it was a good faith edit. I read that in an Urdu book "Tablegh-e-Islam aur Punjab" and it stated in its "Awan" section that "Herbert Feldman says that this Arabic tribe (Tribe of Arab Origin) posses extraordinary qualities like uncompromising attitude etc..." Sitush, also requested to me to quote Feldman but I was reluctant because I had not read the Original english text myself.
Moreover, the fact that Awan tribe is of Arabic origin did not needed any citation, Please see [this], because the fact that they are descendants of Ali ibn Abu Talib (A.S) was established, it automatically establishes the fact that they are of Arab origin as Ali (A.S) was Arabic. I still tried to cite a book which explicitly says "... they came from Arabia", I think it doesn't hurt citing something from an introduction of the poetry book, where it wasn't even needed, please see [this]. That Book was also not solely published by lulu.com, it was published by Maktab Islamic Books initially and then it's pdf form was later uploaded to lulu.com. I also read the Indus Saga by Aitizaz Ehsan and It was an excellent read, I think it is an amazing book with well researched content. It can also be used as a very reliable source to claim that the probability of Awan being an Arab tribe is little. This book was a hit in Pakistan and it is quite popular, so much so that people who agrees with the research by Aitazaz Ehsan are referred as the "Indus Saga Group", and popularity always attracts criticism, so there is a huge group which does not agree with the research of Aitizaz Ehsan which makes his book quite controversial but I still think that his book could be used as a very reliable source (please see [this]). It does not mean that the majority opinion regarding the issue could be discarded mainly because Aitizaz Ehsan did not gave an alternative Origin for the tribe. He discussed that the historical record of mass Arabs migration towards Sub Continent is not available, but the other opinion of scholars say that when the Muslim Rulers started [persecuting] the Ahl al-Bayt, to keep their rule unchallenged, Ahl al-Bayt started migrating secretly out of the Muslim conquered areas of that time. They migrated to areas like Afghanistan, [Sub Continent] and [Central Asia] and Awan was among those who migrated to Afghanistan later when Mahmud of Ghazni invaded Sub continent, they moved to Sub Continent. The migration was done as secretly as possible and the mass migration from Afghanistan to modern-day Pakistan was in the time of an invasion, so there is lack of historical record. I think both of the opinions could be mentioned in the Article, instead of not mentioning anything at all. --Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


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


Yes I know about WP:CIRCULAR and WP:SYNTHESIS, but I did not make any claims here and I did not source anything from wikipedia, I just linked wikipedia articles for your ease in case if you don't know about Islamic History. The Persecution and secret migration of Ahl al-Bayt is a common knowledge which is extensively covered by many credible and reliable sources like [this book] and by many notable historians. As far as the "opinion of the tribe" is concerned, I think it can only create bias and biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone (WP:BIASED). But As a wikipedia editor I want every article to be as unbiased as possible, so I made sure to only cite the sources which are from neutral authors and all of the cited sources were from non-tribe authors except Ganj ul Asrar.
a) Majority Opinion should bear more weightage than the other because giving equal weightge can create false balance, please see WP:WEIGHT. Opinion of the majority of the scholars is that the tribe is of Arabic origin, so it should be given more weightage than any other minority opinion.
b) To be very honest, We only have reliable sources for only one theory of origin of the tribe, i.e. Arabic. Every other theory of origin is different from one another and is not mostly from reliable sources, anyone can WP:CITEKILL with reliable sources which advocates the tribe's Arabic origin while its really difficult to find even two reliable sources to support a single Non-Arab theory of origin. Plus many of the Non-Arab theories are based on complete assumptions like the term "Awan" might be a derived form of "Anuwan" which referred to the decedents of god Anu. Such opinions should not be cited at all, please read WP:VALID. Aitizaz Ehsan could be cited with his name and with the mention that he did not gave any other alternative theory of origin. Another thing which strengthens the Majority's Opinion is the fact that there is no mention of any such tribe in old Hindu scriptures and books, otherwise it would have been very common, which implies that these people must have come at least after the establishment of the Muslim rule in the Sub Continent. --Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we went by majority opinion, the articles for every caste in India would state as a near certainty that the caste was descended from a multi-armed deity or some such mythical being. We don't do it. Wikipedia is not and never has been held hostage by "majority opinion". We present things neutrally except in the case of WP:FRINGE. Sitush (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean by "held hostage by majority opinion"?, Editors should make sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable sources are covered, Please read WP:RS. As far as the mythical viewpoints are concerned, I think that they should be included in the articles, only if taken from reliable sources, but should be properly labeled under a different section, Please see WP:LABELFICTION. I totally agree that editors should present things neutrally, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, except in the case of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. --Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the edit summary here. I am fed up of you trying to bludgeon your preferred origin claim into this article using terrible sources & snarky phrasing. - Sitush (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could I use my own DNA test as a source for this article?

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

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

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

Khadim Hussain Rizvi

To include on main page, under notable people:

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


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

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2021

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


Need consensus

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

  • I restored the version of article which was reverted in accordance with WP:BANREVERT, because WP:BANREVERT is not always necessary and I think that previous version was much, much better and much more scientific. It also satisfies all cn and qn tags.
  • I added the following content under heading of "Genetic studies on Awan";

Centre for Human Genetics of Edith Cowan University, Australia, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Pakistan and Institute of General Genetics of Russian Academy of Science, Russia conducted different genetic studies on Awan and its neighbouring tribes, namely Khattar and Rajput, which concluded that Awans are genetically isolated, endogamous and very different from it's neighbouring tribes.[1]

The last best version of this article is [1] for which I need your consensus, your input will be highly appreciated.

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

References

  1. ^ W. Wang; S. G. Sullivan; S. Ahmed; D. Chandler; L. A. Zhivotovsky; A. H. Bittles (2000). "A genome-based study of consanguinity in three co-resident endogamous Pakistan communities". Annals of Human Genetics. 64. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 41–49.

Unprejudiced, objective and impartial citations required in ethnicity and clan debates

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qutb Shah descendants - incorporate in main article

Could we incorporate the following into the main article:

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

from 'North Indian Notes & Queries 1894 Volume 3 p.25'

No - that is a Raj source, which Wikipedia does not consider a reliable source - Arjayay (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more notable members of the Awan tribe to the list.

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

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

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

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

Genatic report

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

Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Awans.

Hi, all editors interested in awan tribe, please don't panic about awan origin, as it is our identity, we have right to write about ourselves as we are using as reference Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Awans. http://prr.hec.gov.pk/jspui/bitstream/123456789/2751/1/2908S.pdf Page # 92, 93 which read: The haplogroup T1(originated in the Middle East countries) was only recorded in Awans. Tell me who live in Middle East countries? Arab or Indians? If arab then Awan surely belong to the Arab. Ali Imran Awan (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wildhorse3, your edits constitute WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I have looked through the citations you added and nowhere does it say that the Awans "have an Arab origin". You need to provide exact quotes from the citations that say this. The only thing the citation says is "A three-cytosine deletion (CCC) at position 16191-16193 observed in the ethnic Awan population residing in Mansehra." You yourself have made the conclusion that they are of Arab origin. The other sentence you added ("haplogroup T is only found in Awans, suggesting that the tribe is of Arab origin") is also unsupported. The citation does not mention Afghanistan either. Arjayay, you should also take a look at this. Orientls (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Orientls, my edits do not constitute original research. I am sorry but I think you didn’t go through the citation properly because map you removed saying it “self-made” was actually ‘figure 3’ in the cited DNA report. The report does say that Awans are closely related to Sayyids and that they fall in the same cluster. So, it automatically means that Awans are of Arab origin (origin from genetics is always based on genetic distance). Similarly, haplogroup T is a haplogroup of Arab origin, so writing origin of haplogroup T along with the mention of it does not constitute original research because its already an established fact. It just makes it easier for the readers to understand the genetic term. Please remember that established facts do not need citations WP:FACTS. Wildhorse3 (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wildhorse3, it is your own interpretation because the citation does not specifically say that Awans are related to Arabs anywhere in the paper (I read the entire paper). Per WP:VERIFY, you need to proved the exact quotes from the paper that support your assertion. I only removed what the citation did not explicitly say and actually provided quotes of what the article does say in the citation. Arjayay, look at the citation and see if you agree or disagree. Your input is necessary here or there will just be more edit warring. Orientls (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am with Orientls - I have read the studies that are being used as citations and there is no mention of the Awans being Arabs or being related to Arabs based on genetic evidence. It would be a clear breach of WP:V to add that claim in. Marsharbt (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of you accept that Department of Genetics of Hazara University, Pakistan conducted a dental morphology and DNA analysis of major tribes in Northern Pakistan which recorded that haplogroup T1[1] (originated in Israel[2]) is only found in Awans,[3]
Then could it suggest that only awan tribe having haplogroup T1 is origin of arab, because if they have T1 (originated from arab), where theg get this haplogroup T1 from? If their ancestors were not arab? None arab could not pass them T1.
) Ali Imran Awan (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in getting in a caste war with a pov warrior but Ali Imran is insisting their source states that the haplogroup t1 is of arab origin but the source itself says no such thing: "The haplogroup t was only recorded in Awan population" CUPIDICAE💕 17:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read it here contents 2.2
T1 is the most common descent of T-M184 haplogroup, being the lineage of more than 95% of all Eurasian T-M184 members. One of their descent lineages is found in high frequencies among northern Somali clans. However, it appears to have originated somewhere around the Eastern Mediterranean Basin, perhaps somewhere between Israel to the Jordan Valley.
If origion of T1 is in Israel and it recorded in awan Population as you can read it in this report [4]
Then what could be the origion of awan tribe? Ali Imran Awan (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Haplogroup T1 origin".
  2. ^ "Haplogroup T1 origin".
  3. ^ "page numbers 92-93 of this report not page numbers of pdf" (PDF).
  4. ^ Nazia (2014). "GENETIC ANALYSES OF THE MAJOR TRIBES OF ABBOTTABAD AND MANSEHRA DISTRICTS THROUGH DENTAL MORPHOLOGY AND DNA ANALYSES" (PDF). DEPARTMENT OF GENETICS HAZARA UNIVERSITY MANSEHRA: 92.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Awan_(tribe)&oldid=1081411350"